A.C. No. 2655; October 12, 2010
Leonard W. Richards, Complainant, vs. Patricio A. Asoy, Respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from a 1984 complaint for malpractice filed by Leonard Richards against his lawyer, Patricio A. Asoy. The Supreme Court, after multiple futile attempts to serve its orders on Asoy at various addresses, found in 1985 that he had gone into hiding to evade service. Consequently, the Court suspended him from the practice of law. Asoy eventually surfaced, filed an answer, and participated in the proceedings. In a 1987 Resolution, the Court disbarred Asoy for grave professional misconduct, finding he had abandoned his client after receiving legal fees, resulting in the dismissal of the client’s case, and had initially ignored the Court’s processes. The Court also ordered him to reimburse Richards the sum of ₱16,300 within thirty days.
Years later, Asoy filed a petition for reinstatement to the Bar. The Court noted that he had only consigned the reimbursement amount with the Court Clerk in 1997, a full nine years after the finality of the disbarment order. The consignation was made without any prior attempt to locate and pay the complainant directly, despite his address being available in the records.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Patricio A. Asoy has sufficiently reformed and demonstrated the requisite moral fitness for reinstatement to the legal profession.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for reinstatement. The legal logic rests on the principle that reinstatement is not a right but a privilege granted only upon clear and convincing proof of the petitioner’s rehabilitation and present moral fitness to resume the practice of law. The Court found Asoy failed to meet this burden. His contumacious disregard for its lawful orders was a central factor. The nine-year delay in complying with the reimbursement directive, coupled with his method of merely consigning the money with the Court instead of making a sincere effort to locate and pay the complainant directly, demonstrated a persistent lack of candor, good faith, and respect for judicial authority. This conduct violated Canons 7 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which demand lawyers uphold the dignity of the legal profession and owe candor and good faith to the court. The Court concluded that such disrespect for its processes and the absence of genuine atonement for his misdeeds proved he remained unfit to be restored to the Roll of Attorneys.
