View full case

COBALT RESOURCES v. ATTY. RONALD AGUADO

FACTS:

Cobalt Resources, Inc. (CRI) filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Ronald C. Aguado (Atty. Aguado) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). CRI alleged that a group of armed men hijacked their delivery van, loaded with cellular phones, using a fake mission order. The armed men dropped off the driver and his companions at a golf club before heading to a bar where the stolen cellular phones were tracked. The police officers found the stolen phones and also discovered a Toyota Fortuner owned by Atty. Aguado parked in front of the bar. They arrested one individual, but Atty. Aguado was not arrested at that time. CRI further alleged that the fake mission order and identification card found in Atty. Aguado's vehicle implicated him in the crime. Based on a sworn statement executed by one of the individuals arrested, CRI concluded that Atty. Aguado masterminded the hijacking. Two separate criminal cases for robbery and carnapping were filed against Atty. Aguado and several others. The IBP found Atty. Aguado liable for unlawful conduct in falsifying the identification card and mission order and suspended him from the practice of law for two years. CRI filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the disbarment of Atty. Aguado, but it was denied along with Atty. Aguado's motion for reconsideration. Both parties filed petitions for review before the Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the finding of guilt in a criminal case necessarily means a finding of liability in an administrative disbarment case.

  2. Whether the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence exculpates the respondent in an administrative disbarment case.

  3. Whether Atty. Aguado had participation in the planning and execution of the crime as charged.

  4. Whether the falsified documents found in Atty. Aguado's possession were used to facilitate the commission of the crime.

  5. Whether or not Atty. Aguado committed the crime of falsification of documents.

  6. Whether or not Atty. Aguado violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. The finding of guilt in a criminal case does not necessarily mean a finding of liability in an administrative disbarment case. Disbarment proceedings are administrative in nature and are separate and distinct from criminal actions. The quantum of evidence required in administrative cases is preponderance of evidence, while criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. The dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not exculpate the respondent in an administrative disbarment case. The burden of proof in administrative disbarment cases rests upon the complainant, and the quantum of evidence required is preponderant evidence.

  3. From the evidence presented, it can be clearly deduced that Atty. Aguado had participation in the crime as charged in the complaint, from the planning stage up to its execution. The presence of falsified documents in his possession, as certified by the PASG, indicates his involvement and the use of these documents to facilitate the commission of the crime.

  4. Atty. Aguado is found guilty of falsification of documents and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is disbarred and his name is ordered stricken off the roll of attorneys.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Disbarment proceedings are separate and distinct from criminal actions and may proceed independently of each other.

  • The finding of guilt in a criminal case does not necessarily mean a finding of liability in an administrative disbarment case.

  • The dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not exculpate the respondent in an administrative disbarment case.

  • The burden of proof in administrative disbarment cases rests upon the complainant.

  • The quantum of evidence required in administrative disbarment cases is preponderant evidence.

  • In criminal cases, the participation of the accused in the planning and execution of the crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Possession of falsified documents without a satisfactory explanation can indicate the guilt of the possessor in falsification charges.

  • A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. (Rule 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • Lawyers are expected to maintain legal proficiency as well as high standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. They should uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission that might diminish public trust and confidence in the legal profession.

  • Falsification of documents by a lawyer can result in disbarment.