8/10/2019 In Re Asoy - Res Ipsa Loquitur.docx
1/2
Res Ipsa Loquitur
In Re: Complaint against Atty. Patricio A. AsoyLeonard Richards
v. Atty. Patricio Asoy A.C. No. 2655 9 July 1987
FactsSometime in 1982, Leonard Richards retained Atty. Patricio
Asoy as counsel in acivil case before the RTC of Pasay City. The
terms of their contract provide thatRichards was to pay an
acceptance fee of fifteen thousand pesos and Php 300 foreach court
appearance. Thereafter, Richards and his family permanently left
forAustralia, with the understanding that Atty. Asoy would continue
with the case.
The civil case was dismissed by the trial court for lack of
interest, as shown by theabsence of their counsel despite notice.
This decision was overturned and the casewas reinstated following
the reconsideration sought by Atty. Asoy. Two months
after the reinstatement, the case was again dismissed for lack
of interest and/orfailure to prosecute.
For alleged Malpractice for non-attendance at Court hearing,
negligence, and lack ofzeal in prosecuting a civil case for
damages, resulting in its dismissal for lack ofinterest and/or
failure to prosecute, Richards sued Atty. Asoy. Despite
severalattempts to serve him a copy of the show-cause Resolution,
Atty. Asoy remainedelusive. He had gone into hiding and was
deliberately evading service of processesof the court, and so the
Supreme Court issued a resolution suspending Atty. Asoyfrom the
practice of law. Copies of the Resolution were circularized to all
Courtsnationwide with the directive that should Respondent appear
before any lowerCourt, the latter shall serve upon him a copy of
the show-cause Resolution andrequire him to appear within five days
thereafter before the Deputy Clerk of Courtand Bar Confidant.
A little under a month after, Atty. Asoy filed a Manifestation
submitting himselfvoluntarily to the jurisdiction of the Court. He
denied all accusations and prayed thatthe order of suspension be
lifted. He also asked that he be excused from appearingbefore the
Bar Confidant by reason of financial constraints. The court denied
thelifting but excused him from appearing.
In his answer, Atty. Asoy reasoned that it was the failure of
Richards to give himtheir new address in Australia that led to his
inability to prosecute the case and alsohe was unable to shoulder
the fees required for the services of expert witnessesbesides the
fact that his daughter was stricken with cerebral palsy. He also
claimedthat he had no intention to delay Richards for money, and
that he was deprived ofdue process of law because he was not given
an opportunity to be heard before hewas suspended.
Issue: Whether Atty. Asoy may be held liable.
8/10/2019 In Re Asoy - Res Ipsa Loquitur.docx
2/2
Held/Ratio: Yes
As to the issue of due process, Atty. Asoy's side has been fully
heard in the pleadingshe has filed before this Court. A trial-type
hearing is not needed. The requirement ofdue process has been duly
satisfied. What due process abhors is absolute lack of
opportunity to be heard.
The facts disclosed require no further evidentiary hearing, and
speak forthemselves. Res ipsa loquitur. The Orders of the Trial
Court dismissing the Civil Caseare of record and Atty. Asoy's
excuse that he can no longer recall them is feeble.
Atty. Asoy is guilty of grave professional misconduct. He
received from Richards, hisclient, compensation to handle his case
in the Trial Court, but the same wasdismissed for lack of interest
and failure to prosecute. He had abandoned his clientin violation
of his contract ignoring the most elementary principles of
professionalethics. That Atty. Asoy also ignored the processes of
the Court and it was only after
he was suspended from the practice of law that he surfaced, is
highly indicative ofhis disregard of an attorney's duties to the
Court.
Atty. Asoy disbarred and ordered to pay damages.
