A.C. No. 2655
EN BANC
A.C. No. 2655, October 12, 2010
LEONARD W. RICHARDS, Complainant,
vs. PATRICIO A. ASOY, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
Per Curiam:
x x x.
The Court, by Resolution of July 9, 1987, after noting respondent’s unquestionable act of going into hiding and evading service of pleadings/orders/processes of the Court which resulted in his suspension, and after reciting the facts of the case which required no further evidentiary hearing as they spoke for themselves, found respondent guilty of grave professional misconduct, viz:
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. That 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. All the facts and circumstances taken into consideration, Respondent has proven himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him by law as an officer of the court.4 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The Court thereupon resolved to DISBAR him and order him to reimburse complainant the sum of P16,300 within thirty (30) days from notice. Thus the Court disposed:
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 + 1,300.00), the only sums substantiated by the evidence on record, within thirty (30) days from notice hereof.
Copies of this Resolution shall be circulated to all Courts of the country and spread on the personal record of respondent Atty. Patricio A. Asoy.
Copies of this Resolution shall likewise be furnished Complainant Leonard W. Richards, via airmail, at his address of record, 4/169 Avoca Street, Randwick NSW 2031, Australia, with copy furnished the Department of Foreign Affairs for onward transmittal to the Philippine Consulate General, Sydney, Australia.
SO ORDERED.5 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
After the promulgation of the July 9, 1987 Resolution, complainant, by letter dated November 3, 1987 which was received by the Court on November 11, 1987,6 complained that respondent had not reimbursed him the P16,300.00.
By Resolution of March 15, 1988, the Court, noting respondent’s failure to comply with its Resolution of July 9, 1987, resolved to require respondents to show cause why he failed to reimburse the P16,300.00 to complainant as required in its Resolution of July 9, 1987, and to comply with said Resolution of July 9, 1987, both within ten days from notice.
Complainant, by another letter of January 13, 19897 which was received by the Court on January 20, 1989, informed that respondent still failed to comply with the order for reimbursement to him of P16,300.00.
Thirteen years after the promulgation of the Court’s Resolution disbarring respondent or on July 18, 2000, respondent filed a Petition for "readmission to the practice of law" stating, among other things, that on January 2, 1996 or about nine years after his disbarment and directive to reimbursement complainant was made, he effected payment of P16,300 via consignation with this Court’s Office of the Cashier. By Resolution of December 12, 2000, the Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit.1avvphi1
More than nine years after the Court denied his petition for "readmission to the practice of law" or on August 2, 2010, the Court received another Petition from respondent, for "Reinstatement to the Bar," stating that, among other things, on January 2, 1996, he effected payment of P16,300.00 in favor of complainant by consignation of the amount with the Office of the Cashier of the Supreme Court as complainant could no longer be found or located; that he had already suffered and agonized for his shortcomings; and that as "positive evidence of his repentance and rehabilitation," he attached testimonials of "credible institutions and personalities."
Respondent justifies his belated ─ nine years ─ compliance with this Court’s order for him to reimburse complaint the amount with his alleged inability to locate complainant. If that were the case, respondent could have obtained complainant’s address from this Court, either through the Office of the Clerk of Court or the Office of the Bar Confidant. Recall that in his letters of November 3, 1987 and January 20, 1989, complainant’s given address was the same as that stated in the Court’s July 9, 1987 Resolution ─ 4/169 Avoca Street, Randwick NSW 2031, Australia.
Respondent’s justification for his 9-year belated "compliance" with the order for him to reimburse complainant glaringly speaks of his lack of candor, of his dishonesty, if not defiance of Court orders, qualities that do not endear him to the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. The solemn oath which all lawyers take upon admission to the bar to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of justice is neither a mere formality nor hollow words meant to be taken lightly, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.8 The lack of any sufficient justification or explanation for the nine-year delay in complying with the Court’s July 9, 1987 and March 15, 1988 Resolutions to reimburse complainant betrays a clear and contumacious disregard for the lawful orders of this Court. Such disrespect on the part of respondent constitutes a clear violation of the lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility which maintains that:
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
. . . . . .
CANON 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Respondent denigrates the dignity of his calling by displaying a lack of candor towards this Court. By taking his sweet time to effect reimbursement of the P16,300.00 – and through consignation with this Court at that - he sent out a strong message that the legal processes and orders of this Court could be treated with disdain or impunity.
Parenthetically, respondent’s consignation could not even be deemed compliance with the Court’s directive to reimburse. The Court does not represent complainant; the latter’s postal address was readily ascertainable from the records had respondent wished to communicate with complainant for the purpose of making amends. The records are bereft of proof that respondent had actually resorted to reimbursing the complainant directly. In short, evidence of atonement for respondent’s misdeeds is sorely wanting.
x x x.
see - www.lawphil.net
