PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
Richards retained Asoy as counsel in a suit for damages. The acceptance fee was fully paid by
Complainant. Richards and his family left permanently for Australia after selling their house
to a third party.
On June 20, 1983, the case was dismissed by the Trial Court without prejudice "for lack of
interest on the part of plaintiffs as shown by the absence of their counsel despite due notice."
On August 15, 1983, the case was reinstated after the reconsideration sought by Asoy was
granted by the Trial Court.
October 20, 1983, the Trial Court again dismissed the case for "lack of interest and/or failure
to prosecute," "it appearing that plaintiffs' counsel was duly notified as indicated by his
signature appearing on the record, it appearing further that notwithstanding said notice, said
counsel for the plaintiffs is not in Court today." The Trial Court further observed that "this is
the second time that this case was dismissed for failure of plaintiffs' counsel to appear despite
notice."
Richards had filed a letter-complaint with the Chief Legal Officer, Tourist Division, Department
of Tourism followed up with another letter dated July 13, 1984 to the Chief Justice denouncing
Atty. Asoys actuations.
Asoy was suspended after he had gone into hiding and was evading service of
pleadings/orders/processes of this Court.
April 29, 1986, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) filed a complaint charging Asoy with
Malpractice for non-attendance at Court hearings, negligence and lack of zeal in prosecuting
a civil case for damages, thus its dismissal for lack of interest and/or failure to prosecute.
HELD: YES. The requirement of due process has been duly satisfied. What due process abhors is
absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.