G.R. No. A.C. No. 2655 November 11, 1985
Leonard W. Richards, complainant, vs. Atty. Patricio A. Asoy, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Leonard W. Richards, an Australian national, retained respondent Atty. Patricio A. Asoy as counsel in a civil case for damages arising from faulty construction of his house and swimming pool in Parañaque. Richards charged Asoy with malpractice, alleging the lawyer’s non-attendance at hearings, negligence, and lack of zeal, which resulted in the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.
The Supreme Court required Asoy to file a comment on the complaint. Despite service of the resolution at his known residential address, he failed to comply. The Court then issued another resolution ordering him to show cause why he should not be disciplined for his failure and to file the required comment. All subsequent attempts to serve court processes at his various office and residential addresses, including through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, proved futile. The process server’s returns indicated he was no longer residing at the addresses, had ceased employment at known offices, and was not a member of the local IBP chapter.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Patricio A. Asoy should be subject to disciplinary action for his failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s orders and for evading service of court processes.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is suspended from the practice of law. The Court’s ruling is grounded on the fundamental duty of every lawyer to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and to obey lawful orders of the Supreme Court. A lawyer is an officer of the court, and this role carries the non-negotiable obligation to respond to its directives and to participate in administrative proceedings instituted against them.
The legal logic is clear: the respondent’s pattern of conduct constitutes a blatant disregard for judicial authority and a violation of his professional oath. His failure to file the required comment, coupled with the effective concealment of his whereabouts to evade service, demonstrates contempt for the Court’s processes. This behavior obstructs the administration of justice in the administrative case against him. The Court cannot tolerate such acts, as they undermine its supervisory authority over the legal profession. The suspension is an immediate disciplinary measure to protect the public and the courts, pending his compliance and further proceedings. The Court also ordered the circularization of the resolution to all courts to ensure enforcement and to mandate any lower court before which he might appear to serve the order and direct him to answer the original complaint.