Richards v. Asoy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Leonard W. Richards, an Australian national, retained respondent Atty. Patricio A. Asoy as counsel in Civil Case No. 0181-P, an action for damages due to faulty construction of his house and swimming pool. The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch CX. Procedural History: The respondent is charged with malpractice for alleged non-attendance at hearings, negligence, and lack of zeal in handling the case, which resulted in its dismissal for lack of interest and/or failure to prosecute. Respondent failed to file a comment on the complaint despite being required by the Court's Resolution dated August 8, 1984. Subsequent resolutions requiring him to show cause and to comply with the earlier resolution were also not heeded. Attempts to serve court processes at his known addresses, including his residence, office, and even his provincial address at the Bar Office of the Supreme Court, were unsuccessful, with notations indicating he was no longer residing at those addresses or was unknown. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Tacloban Chapter informed the Court that the respondent is not a member of the Leyte Chapter. The Court concluded that the respondent has gone into hiding and is evading service of pleadings, orders, and processes. The Petition: The administrative complaint charges Atty. Patricio A. Asoy with malpractice for alleged non-attendance at hearings, negligence, and lack of zeal in handling Civil Case No. 0181-P, leading to its dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Patricio A. Asoy committed malpractice by failing to attend hearings, showing negligence and lack of zeal in handling Civil Case No. 0181-P, resulting in its dismissal. Whether respondent Atty. Patricio A. Asoy should be disciplined for his failure to file a comment on the administrative complaint and for evading service of court processes.
Ruling
The respondent, Atty. Patricio A. Asoy, is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law until further Orders of this Court. Copies of the Resolution are to be circularized to all Courts. Should the respondent appear before any lower court, the latter shall serve him a copy of this Resolution and require him to appear before the Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant to file an Answer to the Administrative Complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of malpractice and failure to prosecute: The respondent's alleged non-attendance at hearings, negligence, and lack of zeal in handling Civil Case No. 0181-P directly led to its dismissal for lack of interest and/or failure to prosecute. This conduct falls under the purview of malpractice and gross negligence in the performance of his duties as counsel. Attorneys are expected to exercise due diligence and zeal in prosecuting their clients' cases, and failure to do so constitutes a dereliction of professional responsibility. The dismissal of the case due to the respondent's inaction prejudiced the complainant's rights and interests. On the issue of failure to comment and evasion of service: The respondent's persistent failure to file a comment on the administrative complaint, despite repeated orders and resolutions from the Court, demonstrates a blatant disregard for the judicial process and the authority of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the extensive efforts made by the Court to serve pleadings and orders at various addresses, all of which proved futile, strongly indicate that the respondent has deliberately gone into hiding to evade service. This evasion constitutes contumacious conduct and a serious breach of professional ethics. The Court cannot countenance such behavior from a member of the Bar, as it undermines the integrity and efficacy of the disciplinary system. The duty to respond to disciplinary proceedings is paramount, and evasion thereof is an aggravating circumstance.
Main Doctrine
An attorney who fails to comment on a complaint filed against him, evades service of court processes, and shows no regard for the Court's resolutions, despite repeated attempts to notify him, may be suspended from the practice of law until further orders.