Sunday, July 19, 2009

DIGEST: Legal Ethics Case 34

In Re: Arthur Cuevas, Jr.
B.M. No. 810 January 27, 1998
En Banc, Francisco

FACTS:
(1) Petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, for his participation in the September 1991 initiation rites of LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITY (San Beda College of Law) wherein a neophyte Raul Camaligan died as a result of personal violence inflicted upon him.
(2) Petitioner applied for and was granted probation. On May 10, 1995, he was discharged from probation and his case was closed and terminated.
(3) Petitioner was allowed to take the bar examinations subject to the condition that; should he pass he will not be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath pending approval by the Court.
(4) Petitioner passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. Petitioner prays that he be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not petitioner Cuevas has the moral fitness required to take the lawyer’s oath?

HELD:
Petitioner is allowed to take the LAWYER’S OATH and sign the ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.

RATIO:
The Court shares the sentiment of Atty. Camaligan, father of hazing victim Raul Camaligan, and condoles with the untimely death of a son who is expected to become a lawyer and succeed his father. In his comment submitted to the Court, Atty. Camaligan submits petitioner’s plea to be admitted to the membershop to the Philippine Bar, to the sound and judicious discretion of the Court.
The deliberate participation of Cuevas in the senseless beating of a helpless neophyte which resulted to his death indicates that petitioner does not possess the moral fitness required for admission to the Bar. However, petitioner was discharged from probation without any infraction thereafter of the conditions of the probation and the various certifications attesting to his righteous, peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to purge himself of his deficiency in moral character and atone for the unfortunate death of Camaligan. The Court then decides to give petitioner a chance in the same manner that it allowed AL ARGOSINO, petitioner’s co-accused to take the lawyer’s oath.

http://anito001.blogspot.com

No comments: