You are on page 1of 1

EN BANC

Adm. Case No. 2655 July 9, 1987

In re: Complaint against ATTY. PATRICIO A. ASOY, LEONARD W. RICHARDS, complainant,


vs.
ATTY. PATRICIO A. ASOY, respondent.

PER CURIAM:

FACTS:

Richards retained Asoy as counsel in a suit for damages. The acceptance fee was fully paid by
Complainant. Richards and his family left permanently for Australia after selling their house
to a third party.
On June 20, 1983, the case was dismissed by the Trial Court without prejudice "for lack of
interest on the part of plaintiffs as shown by the absence of their counsel despite due notice."
On August 15, 1983, the case was reinstated after the reconsideration sought by Asoy was
granted by the Trial Court.
October 20, 1983, the Trial Court again dismissed the case for "lack of interest and/or failure
to prosecute," "it appearing that plaintiffs' counsel was duly notified as indicated by his
signature appearing on the record, it appearing further that notwithstanding said notice, said
counsel for the plaintiffs is not in Court today." The Trial Court further observed that "this is
the second time that this case was dismissed for failure of plaintiffs' counsel to appear despite
notice."
Richards had filed a letter-complaint with the Chief Legal Officer, Tourist Division, Department
of Tourism followed up with another letter dated July 13, 1984 to the Chief Justice denouncing
Atty. Asoys actuations.
Asoy was suspended after he had gone into hiding and was evading service of
pleadings/orders/processes of this Court.
April 29, 1986, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) filed a complaint charging Asoy with
Malpractice for non-attendance at Court hearings, negligence and lack of zeal in prosecuting
a civil case for damages, thus its dismissal for lack of interest and/or failure to prosecute.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Asoy should be dismissed.

HELD: YES. The requirement of due process has been duly satisfied. What due process abhors is
absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.

Respondent is guilty of grave professional misconduct. He received from Complainant, his


client, compensation to handle his case in the Trial Court, but the same was dismissed for lack
of interest and failure to prosecute. He had abandoned his client in violation of his contract
ignoring the most elementary principles of professional ethics. Respondent had ignored the
processes of this Court and it was only after he was suspended from the practice of law that
he surfaced, is highly indicative of his disregard of an attorney's duties to the Court. The
Supreme Court is constrained to disbar a member of the bar who violates his lawyer's oath for
failure to properly attend to a client's case not only once, but on two occasions, with results
highly prejudicial to the interest of the latter.
Furthermore, since Complainant's rights have been prejudiced by the Respondents failure to
take the steps necessary for the prosecution of the case Complainant may recover as a result
of such gross negligence and grave professional misconduct.
ACCORDINGLY, for malpractice and violation of his oath as a lawyer, 1) respondent Atty.
Patricio A. Asoy is hereby ordered DISBARRED; and 2) he is hereby ordered to reimburse
complainant, Leonard W. Richards, in the sum of P16,300.00 (P15,000.00 + P1,300.00), the
only sums substantiated by the evidence on record, within thirty (30) days from notice hereof.

You might also like