A . C . N o .

10 7 8 1 A p r i l 12 , 20 1 6

CO B A L R E S O U R C E S , I N C . , co m p l a i n a n t v A T T Y . R O N A L D A G U A D O , re s p o n d e n t

Fa c t s :

Th i s ca s e is an ad m i n i s t r a t i v e dis b a r m e n t co m p l a i n t fil e d by pe t i t i o n e r ag a i n s t At ty . Ro n a l d

Ag u a d o fo r vi o l a t i n g Ru l e s 1 .0 1 an d 1.0 2 of the Co d e of P r o f e s s i o n a l Re s p o n s i b i l i t y . Th e fa c t s of

th e ca s e pr o v i d e th a t th e de l i v e r y va n ow n e d by Co b a l Re s o u r c e s , Inc . , co n t a i n i n g 1.3 mi l l i o n

wo r t h of ce l l u l a r ph o n e s wa s hij a c k e d by a gr o u p of ar m e d me n pre t e n d i n g to be ag e n t s of

Pr e s i d e n ti a l An t i - S m u g g l i n g G r o u p . Th e said hij a c k wa s a fa k e mi s s i o n pl a n n e d an d ex e c u t e d by

At t y . Ag u a d o wh o fa l s i f i e d his ID as a leg a l co n s u l t a n t of PA S G wh e n in tru t h , he is no t .

Re s p o n d e n t de n i e d the al l e g a t i o n s wi th hi s al i b i th a t his ca r w a s ca r n a p p e d an d wa s sh o c k e d wh e n

he kn e w hi s na m e wa s in th e he a d l i n e s fo r be i n g the ma s t e r m i n d of the fak e mis s io n . Th e IB P

Co m m i s s i o n o f Ba r Dis c ip l in e fo u n d hi m lia b l e for th e cr i m e of fal s i f i c a t i o n of do c u m e n t s an d

w a s s u s p e n d e d for 2 ye a r s . U n s a t i s f i e d , co m p l a i n a n t CR I fil e d a mo t i o n fo r rec o n s i d e r a t i o n s ta t i n g

th a t A g u a d o de s e r v e d th e pe n a l t y of di s b a r m e n t for fal s i f i c a t i o n of do c u m e n t s an d ma s t e r m i n d i n g

th e hi j a c k i n g us i n g hi s pr o f e s s i o n .

Iss u e :

W h e th e r or no t Ag u a d o be dis b a r r e d for hi s gr o s s vio l a t i o n of Ru l e 1.0 1 an d 1.0 2 of th e Co d e of

P r o f e s s i o n a l Re s p o n s i b i l i t y .

Ru li n g :

• Ye s , be c a u s e the re q u i r e d qu a n t u m of pr o o f in ad m i n i s t r a t i v e ca s e s for di s b a r m e n t or

su s p e n s i o n of law y e r s w a s es t a b l i s h e d . In th e tes t i m o n y gi v e n by P a l m e s wh o wa s pa r t of

th e hij a c k i n g op e r a t i o n be l i e v i n g in go o d fait h th a t it w a s a le g i t i m a t e op e r a t i o n , he lai d

do w n ho w Ag u a d o w a s th e on e wh o pl a n n e d , ex e c u t e d , an d for m e d th e ar m e d me n fo r th e

co n d u c t of the hi j a c k i n g .

• He vi o l a t e d Ca n o n 1, Ru l e 1.0 1 an d Ru l e 1.0 2 of the Co d e of P r o f e s s i o n a l Re s p o n s i b i l i t y .

Ru le 1.0 1 – A law y e r sh a ll no t en g a g e in un l a w f u l , di s h o n e s t , im m o r a l , an d de c e i t f u l

co n d u c t . Ru le 1.0 2 – A law y e r s h a l l no t co u n s e l or ab e t ac t i v i t i e s in de f i a n c e of th e la w or

at le s s e n i n g the co n f i d e n c e in th e leg a l s y s t e m .

• In the ca s e at ba r , Ag u a d o ’ s co m m i t m e n t of th e ac t s sh o w e d hi m un f i t an d un a b l e to

fa i t h f u l l y di s c h a r g e his du t i e s as a me m b e r of th e leg a l pr o f e s s i o n . He is un w o r t h y to

pr a c t i c e law . La w y e r s ar e , at all tim e s , ex p e c t e d to up h o l d in t e g r i t y an d dig n i t y of th e l e g a l

pr o f e s s i o n an d to ref r a i n fro m ac t s dim i n i s h i n g th e tru s t an d co n f i d e n c e of the pu b l i c .