Merilou I.

Felicia

Legal Profession Tue 5:30-6:30

307 – Afternoon class

In Re: Petition of Arthur Cuevas BM no. January 27, 1998

Facts

Prior to the Bar Examinations, together with the others, petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr., was
convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide due to his participation in the initiation
rites of the LEX TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the San Beda College. The initiation rites
resulted to the death of Raul I. Camaligan, a neophyte.

Fortunately, petitioner Arthur M. Cuevas, JR., recently passed the 1996 Bar Examinations.
However his oath-taking was held in abeyance in view of the Court’s resolution dated August 27,
1996 which permitted him to take the Bar Examinations "subject to the condition that should
(he) pass the same, (he) shall not be allowed to take the lawyer's oath pending approval of the
Court . . ." due to his previous conviction.

Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was granted probation. He was discharged from probation
and his case considered closed and terminated.

In the petition received by the Supreme Court, petitioner prays that he be allowed to take his
lawyer’s oath attaching thereto the Order dated May 16, 1995 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
10 of Antique discharging him from his probation. Along with this, he presented certifications
attesting to his righteous, peaceful and law abiding character issued by the authorities therein.
On July 15, 1997, the Court, before acting on petitioner’s application, resolved to require Atty.
Gilbert D. Camaligan, father of the deceased hazing victim Raul I. Camaligan, to comment
thereon. In the comment, Atty. Gilbert said that he has forgiven the accused and he is not right
now in a position to say whether petitioner, since then, has become morally fit to the noble
profession of the law and politely submits this matter to the sound and judicious discretion of
the Hon. Court.

Issue:

Whether or not Arthur M. Cuevas, Jr. has the moral fitness to take his lawyer’s oath and sign
the Roll of Attorneys.

Ruling

Petitioner is allowed to tale the Lawyer’s Oath and Roll of Attorneys.

The Court shares the same sentiment of Atty. Camaligan and condoles with the untimely death
of his son who is expected to become a lawyer and succeed his father. In his comment submitted
to the Court, Atty. Camaligan submits that the petitioner has been morally fit to be admitted to
the membership to the Philippine Bar, tot the sound discretion of the Court. The deliberate
participation of Cuevas in the initiation rites indicated that petitioner does not possess the moral
fitness required for the 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 character.

The Court then decided to give petitioner a chance in the same manner that it allowed Al
Argosino, petitioner’s to take the lawyer’s oath.