3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 632

A.C. No. 2655. October 12, 2010.*

LEONARD W. RICHARDS, complainant, vs. PATRICIO A.

ASOY, respondent.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; 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.—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.
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.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Petition

for Reinstatement to the Bar.
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
  Funa, Balayan, Fortes & Villagonzalo Law Offices for
respondent.

RESOLUTION

Per Curiam:
For consideration is the petition of Patricio A. Asoy
(respondent) for reinstatement to the Bar. Records disclose
that

_______________

* EN BANC.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fcc36a26eccfe7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 632

600

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Richards vs. Asoy

the Ministry of Tourism, by 1st Indorsement of July 2,

1984, forwarded to the Court a June 28, 1984 letter-
complaint of Leonard Richards (complainant) against
respondent.
By Resolution of November 11, 1985, the Court, noting
respondent’s failure to comply, despite notice, with its
Resolution of August 8, 1984 requiring him to comment on
complainant’s letter, resolved to require him to show cause
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in
contempt and to comply with the said Resolution of August
8, 1984, both within ten days from notice.
In the same Resolution of November 11, 1985, the Court
noted several attempts, which were all futile, to serve copy
of the August 8, 1984 Resolution at respondent’s other
addresses, viz.: B.F. Homes, Parañaque; the Central Bank
Legal Department; Suite 306, Filmanbank Building, Plaza
Sta. Cruz, Sta. Cruz; Asia International Builders Corp., 5th
Floor, ADC Bldg., Ayala Avenue, Makati (the address given
in respondent’s calling card); and respondent’s provincial
address at the Bar Office which was coursed through the
IBP Tacloban Chapter.1
Still in the same Resolution of November 11, 1985, the
Court noted that “unquestionably, respondent had gone
into hiding and was evading service of
2
pleadings/orders/processes of this Court.” The Court
accordingly suspended respondent from the practice of law
until further orders from this Court. Thus it disposed:

“ACCORDINGLY, respondent, Atty. Patricio A. Asoy, is hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law until further Orders of this
Court. Let copies of this Resolution be circularized to all Courts.
Should respondent appear before any lower Court, the latter
shall serve upon him a copy of this Resolution and require him to
appear, within five (5) days, before the Deputy Clerk of Court and

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 127.
2 Id., at p. 130.

601

VOL. 632, OCTOBER 12, 2010 601

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fcc36a26eccfe7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 632

Richards vs. Asoy

Bar Confidant, who shall furnish him with a copy of the

Administrative Complaint and require him to file an Answer
thereto, within five (5) days thereafter. The lower Court
concerned shall furnish this Court with copy of its Order
immediately.”3 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

On January 9, 1986, respondent filed before the Court a

MANIFESTATION/MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
alleging that on December 2, 1985, he “learned and secured
a copy of Supervisory Circular No. 17 wherein the
Resolution of the . . . Court, promulgated on November 11,
1985 is quoted. . .”; that he was voluntarily submitting
himself to the jurisdiction of the Court even if he had not
been formally served a copy of the Resolution and had not
been ordered by any lower court to appear before the
Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant; that on account
of distance and financial constraints, he could not possibly
comply with the Order of this Court for him to appear
before the Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant within
the five-day period stated; that he was totally unaware of
the existence of the complaint until December 2, 1985; and
that to the best of his knowledge, he had not violated his
oath as an attorney at law nor is he guilty of any offense to
warrant his suspension from the practice of law.
Respondent thus prayed for the lifting of his suspension
and for excusing him from personally appearing before the
Bar Confidant upon the undertaking that he would answer
the complaint in five days from receipt thereof.
On the directive of the Court, the Bar Confidant
formalized the complaint against respondent on April 29,
1986.
By Resolution of October 1, 1986, the Court, noting
respondent’s failure to file comment on the administrative
complaint within the period which expired on May 21,
1986, directed the sending of the administrative complaint
to respondent at his

_______________

3 Id., at p. 71.

602

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Richards vs. Asoy

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fcc36a26eccfe7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 632

address in Iligan City for compliance with the Resolution

requiring him to file Answer to the Complaint.
On December 18, 1986, the Court received respondent’s
ANSWER WITH MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF
SUSPENSION, alleging that he received copy of the
complaint only on November 19, 1986, “though the same
was served and received at this present address (Rm. 302
Aalos Building, Aguinaldo St., Iligan City) on May 6, 1986
and November 5, 1986”; and that he was begging the
indulgence of the Court and of the complainant for the
delay in the filing of his Answer due to his temporary
transfer to Tubud, Lanao del Norte in view of his
temporary appointment as Provincial Administrator.
By Resolution of February 10, 1986, the Court denied
respondent’s prayer to lift the order of suspension from the
practice of law but excused him from appearing before the
Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant.
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

603

VOL. 632, OCTOBER 12, 2010 603

Richards vs. Asoy

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:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fcc36a26eccfe7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 632

“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.

_______________

4 Id., at p. 135.
5 Id., at p. 136.
6 Id., at p. 98.

604

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Richards vs. Asoy

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,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fcc36a26eccfe7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 632

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.
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
complainant 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.

_______________

7 Records, p. 100.

605

VOL. 632, OCTOBER 12, 2010 605

Richards vs. Asoy

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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fcc36a26eccfe7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 632

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.

_______________

8 Ting-Dumali v. Torres, A.C. No. 5161, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 108,
115; Radjaie v. Alovera, A.C. No. 4748, August 4, 2000, 337 SCRA 244,
255-256.

606

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Richards vs. Asoy

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.
WHEREFORE, respondent Patricio A. Asoy’s petition
for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys is DENIED.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fcc36a26eccfe7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
3/30/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 632

SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J.), Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura,

Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., On Official Leave.
Peralta, J., On Leave.
Abad, J., On Official Leave.

Petition denied.

Note.—Membership in the legal profession is a privilege

and it demands a high degree of good moral character not
only as a condition precedent to admission but also as a
continuing requirement for the practice of law. (Yu vs.
Palaña, 558 SCRA 21 [2008])
——o0o—— 

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017882fcc36a26eccfe7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8