RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH

(Lawyers Oath) (G.R. No. 712, March 19, 1997) (270 SCRA 26)
FACTS:
In 1991, Al Caparros Argosino was convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide where he was sentenced with two years imprisonment. He was later granted by
the court with 2-years probation. In 1993, Argosino passed the bar examinations. The Court
however deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Argosino be allowed to take the lawyers oath.
HELD:
The lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every
lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes
when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the
lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration of justice will
undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone concerned. The Court however, allow
Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal
profession give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the youths tendency to
be rash and uncalculating.

IN RE CUNANAN IN RE CUNANAN (94 Phil 534, March 18, 1954)

FACTS:
Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, known as the Bar Flunkers Act of
1953. By virtue of the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar
those candidates who had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 percent.
Many of the unsuccessful post war candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar
invoking the provision of the said law. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners and to clear
the doubts have been expressed as to its validity for being contrary to public interest, the
court resolved to review the validity of the said Act in question.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA No. 972 is contrary to public interest
HELD:
RA No. 972 is contrary to public interest. The public interest demands of legal
profession adequate preparation and efficiency especially because the legal problems
evolved by the times become more difficult. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital
requisites for the practice of law that should be maintained firmly. To the legal profession is
entrusted the protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. To approve officially of
those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission
is to create a serious social danger. By its declared objective, the law in question is contrary
to public interest because it qualifies law graduates who confessedly had inadequate
preparation for the practice of the profession.