Overgaard Vs Valdez

4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567
A.C. No. 7902. September 30, 2008.*

TORBEN B. OVERGAARD, complainant, vs. ATTY.
GODWIN R. VALDEZ, respondent.
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; The appropriate penalty

to be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise of sound
judicial discretion based on the facts of the case.—The appropriate
penalty to be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise
of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case. Section
27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides, viz.: Sec. 27.
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds
therefor.—A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he
is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred
or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly
immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful
appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. A lawyer
may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting
in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor, or
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
Same; Same; Same; Deceit; Words and Phrases; Deceitful
conduct involves moral turpitude and includes anything done
contrary to justice, modesty or good morals—it is an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties
which a man owes to his
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017151b048d3ecfc8a3e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
* EN BANC.
119
VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 119
Overgaard vs. Valdez
fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty,

modesty, or good morals.—Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Deceitful
conduct involves moral turpitude and includes anything done
contrary to justice, modesty or good morals. It is an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties
which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general,
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
Representing to the complainant that he would take care of the
cases filed against him, assuring the complainant that his
property involved in a civil case would be safeguarded, and then
collecting the full amount of legal fees of PhP900,000.00, only to
desert the complainant after receipt of the fees, were manifestly
deceitful and dishonest.
Same; Same; Same; The relationship of an attorney to his
client is highly fiduciary.—The relationship of an attorney to his
client is highly fiduciary. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
client.” Necessity and public interest enjoin lawyers to be honest
and truthful when dealing with his client. A lawyer owes fidelity
to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. However, instead of devoting himself
to the client’s cause, the respondent avoided the complainant,
forgot about the cases he was handling for him and ostensibly
abandoned him. The client reposed his trust in his lawyer with
full faith that the lawyer would not betray him or abscond from
his responsibilities. By assuring the complainant that he would
take care of the cases included in the Retainer Agreement, and
even accepting fees, the respondent defrauded the complainant
when he did not do a single thing he was expected to do.
Same; Same; Same; Respondent lawyer was not just incompetent,
he was practically useless; he was not just negligent, he was
indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant, he
prejudiced the client.—A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable. Respondent should indeed be

held liable, for he was not just incompetent, he was practically
useless; he was not just negligent,
120
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
he was indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant,

he prejudiced the client. Respondent’s inaction with respect to the
matters entrusted to his care is obvious; and his failure to file an
answer to the complaint for disbarment against him and to attend
the hearings in connection therewith, without any explanation or
request for resetting, despite proper notice from the IBP, is clear
evidence of negligence on his part.
Same; Same; Same; A lawyer is required to keep the client
informed of the status of his case and to respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s request for information.—The Code
of Professional Responsibility further provides that a lawyer is
required to keep the client informed of the status of his case and
to respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for
information. The respondent did the opposite. Despite the
complainant’s efforts to consult him and notwithstanding
numerous attempts to contact him, simply to ask for an update of
the status of the cases, the respondent was able to avoid the
complainant and never bothered to reply.
Same; Same; Same; Attorney’s Fees; Where a lawyer did not carry
out any of the services he was engaged to perform, nor did he
appear in court or make any payment in connection with
litigation, or give any explanation as to how such a large sum of
money was spent and allocated, he must immediately return the
money he received from the client upon demand.—Rule 16.01,
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, provides that
“a lawyer shall account for all money and property collected or
received for and from the client.” The complainant paid
$16,854.00 to the respondent via telegraphic bank transfer. This
was considered as complete payment for the PhP900,000.00 that
was stipulated as the consideration for the legal services to be
rendered. However, since the respondent did not carry out any of
the services he was engaged to perform, nor did he appear in
court or make any payment in connection with litigation, or give
any explanation as to how such a large sum of money was spent
and allocated, he must immediately return the money he received
from the client upon demand. However, he refused to return the
money he received from the complainant despite written
demands, and was not even able to give a single report regarding
the status of the cases. Acceptance of money from a client

establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the
duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer
for a specific purpose—such as for filing
121
VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 121
fees—but not used for failure to file the case, must immediately be
returned to the client on demand.
Same; Same; Same; The practice of law is not a right, but a
privilege—it is granted only to those of good moral character.—
The practice of law is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted
only to those of good moral character. The Bar must maintain a
high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Lawyers must conduct
themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are
dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of
the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and
disbarment.
Same; Same; Same; The practice of law is a profession, a form
of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who
are qualified and who possess good moral character—those who
are unable or unwilling to comply with the responsibilities and
meet the standards of the profession are unworthy of the privilege
to practice law.—The respondent demonstrated not only appalling
indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his client
but also a wanton disregard for his duties as a lawyer. It is
deplorable that members of the bar, such as the respondent,
betray not only the trust of their client, but also public trust. For
the practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the
performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and
who possess good moral character. Those who are unable or
unwilling to comply with the responsibilities and meet the
standards of the profession are unworthy of the privilege to
practice law. We must protect the administration of justice by
requiring those who exercise this function to be competent,
honorable and reliable in order that the courts and clients may
rightly repose confidence in them.
Same; Same; Same; Respondent lawyer’s incompetence and
appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts and
society render him unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed
in him as a member of the bar.—In this case, we find that
suspension for three years recommended by the IBP is not
sufficient punishment for the unacceptable acts and omissions of

respondent. The acts of the respondent constitute malpractice and
gross misconduct in his office as attorney. His incompetence and
appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts and
society render him unfit to continue dis-
122
charging the trust reposed in him as a member of the bar. We

could not find any mitigating circumstances to recommend a
lighter penalty. For violating elementary principles of
professional ethics and failing to observe the fundamental duties
of honesty and good faith, the respondent has proven himself
unworthy of membership in this noble profession.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Montesa and Associates for complainant.
PER CURIAM:
Complainant seeks the disbarment of Atty. Godwin R.
Valdez from the practice of law for gross malpractice,
immoral character, dishonesty and deceitful conduct. The
complainant alleges that despite receipt of legal fees in
compliance with a Retainer Agreement, the respondent
refused to perform any of his obligations under their
contract for legal services, ignored the complainant’s
requests for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to
his care, and rejected demands for return of the money paid
to him.
On December 16, 2005, the complainant, Torben B.
Overgaard, a Dutch national, through his business partner
John Bradley, entered into a Retainer Agreement1 with the
respondent, Atty. Godwin R. Valdez. For the amount of
PhP900,000.00, the complainant engaged the services of
the respondent to represent him as his legal counsel in two
cases filed by him and two cases filed against him, all
pending in Antipolo City; including a dismissed complaint
which was appealed before the Department of Justice. The
Agreement stipulated that fees would cover acceptance and
attorney’s
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 3.
123
VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 123

fees, expenses of litigation, other legal incidental expenses,

and appearance fees.2
The cases filed by the complainant included a complaint
for Estafa, Grave Threats, Coercion, Unjust Vexation and
Oral Defamation3 pending before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Antipolo and a civil case for Mandamus,
Injunction with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
and Damages4 which is on trial at Branch 71, Regional
Trial Court of Antipolo City. On the other hand, the cases
filed against the complainant included a criminal case for
Other Light Threats at Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial
Court of Antipolo,5 and violation of Section 5(a) of Republic
Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 20046 before the Family Court of Antipolo
City. A complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms was
also filed against Torben Overgaard which was dismissed
by the City Prosecutor of Antipolo City. This was appealed
to the Department of Justice by way of Petition for
Review.7
Upon the execution of the Retainer Agreement, the
complainant paid the respondent USD16,854.00 through
telegraphic bank transfer,8 as full payment for the services
to be rendered under the Agreement. The respondent then
assured the complainant that he would take good care of
the cases he was handling for the complainant.9
On April 11, 2006, four months after the execution of the
Retainer Agreement, the complainant, through his
business partner John Bradley, demanded from the
respondent a report of the action he had taken with respect
to the cases en-
_______________
2 Id.
3 Id., p. 5.
4 Id., p. 6.
5 Id., p. 7.
6 Id., p. 8.
7 Id., p. 9
8 Id., pp. 4, 45.
9 Id., p. 5.
124

trusted to him. However, despite his continued efforts to

contact the respondent to inquire on the status of the cases,
he was unable to reach him; his phone calls were not
answered and his electronic mails were ignored.10
The complainant had no knowledge of the developments
of the cases that the respondent was handling for him.
Upon his own inquiry, he was dismayed to find out that the
respondent did not file his entry of appearance in the cases
for Other Light Threats and Violation of Section 5(a) of the
Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act.11 The
respondent also did not inform him that he was entitled to
prepare a Counter-Affidavit to answer the complaint for
Other Light Threats. The complainant had no knowledge
that there had already been arraignments for the criminal
cases against him, and that there were already warrants of
arrest12 issued for his failure to attend the arraignments.
He was constrained to engage the services of another
lawyer in order to file a Motion to Lift the Warrant of
Arrest in the case for Other Light Threats,13 and an
Omnibus Motion to Revive the Case and Lift the Warrant
of Arrest in the case for Violation of Section 5(a) of the
Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act.14
The complainant alleges that the respondent did not do
a single thing with respect to the cases covered under the
Retainer Agreement. Not only did the respondent fail to
enter his appearance in the criminal cases filed against the
complainant, he also neglected to file an entry of
appearance in the civil case for Mandamus, Injunction and
Damages that the complainant filed. The respondent also
did not file a Comment on the complaint for Illegal
Possession of Firearms
_______________
10 Id., p. 46.
11 Id., p. 2.
12 Id., pp. 10 and 11.
13 Id., p. 72.
14 Id., p. 75.
125
VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 125

which was dismissed and under review at the Department

of Justice.15
Due to the above lapses of the respondent, on November
27, 2006, the complainant wrote the respondent and
demanded the return of the documents which were turned
over to him, as well as the PhP900,000.00 that was paid in
consideration of the cases he was supposed to handle for
the complainant.16 However, complainant was unable to
get any word from the respondent despite repeated and
continuous efforts to get in touch with him.
Hence, on December 28, 2006, Torben Overgaard was
constrained to file an administrative complaint against
Atty. Godwin R. Valdez before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, alleging that the respondent engaged in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.17
Despite the order to submit an Answer to the complaint
against him,18 the respondent failed to comply. A
Mandatory Conference was set on September 21, 2007,19
but the respondent failed to attend despite being duly
notified.20 This prompted the Commission on Bar
Discipline to issue an Order declaring the respondent in
default for failure to submit an Answer and failure to
attend the Mandatory Conference.21 The investigation
proceeded ex parte.
The complainant submitted his position paper on
October 5, 2007,22 with a prayer that the respondent be
disbarred from the practice of law, and to be ordered to
return the amount of PhP900,000.00. A Clarificatory
Hearing was scheduled on
_______________
15 Id., p. 23-24.
16 Id., pp. 12 and 40.
17 The administrative complaint was docketed as CBD Case No. 06-
1894.
18 Rollo, p. 13.
19 Id., p. 19.
20 Id.
21 Id., p. 21.
22 Id., p. 22.
126

December 11, 2007,23 and again, it was only the

complainant who was in attendance; the respondent failed
to attend the hearing despite notice. The case was then
submitted for resolution based on the pleadings submitted
by the complainant and the hearings conducted.24
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating
Commissioner Antonio S. Tria, to whom the instant
disciplinary case was assigned for investigation, report and
recommendation, found the respondent guilty of violating
Canon 15, Canon 16, Rule 16.01, Canon 17, Canon 18, and
Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In his
Report dated January 29, 2008, he recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of three (3) years. The IBP Board of Governors,
through Resolution No. XVIII-2008-126, dated March 6,
2008, approved the recommendation of Commissioner Tria,
and further ordered the complainant to return the
PhP900,000.00 to the complainant within 60 days from
receipt of the notice.
We agree. We find the respondent Atty. Godwin R.
Valdez to have committed multiple violations of the canons
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant
attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion
based on the facts of the case. Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court provides, viz.:
“Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme

Court, grounds therefor.—A member of the bar may be disbarred
or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude or for any violation of the oath which he
is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully
_______________
23 Id., p. 41.
24 Id., p. 43.
127
VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 127

appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to

do so. The practice of soliciting cases for the purpose of gain,
either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.”
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of

Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended
on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice
or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral
conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of
any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willful
appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. A
lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct,
whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.
The respondent has indubitably fallen below the
exacting standards demanded of members of the bar. He
did not merely neglect his client’s cause, he abandoned his
client and left him without any recourse but to hire another
lawyer. He not only failed to properly handle the cases
which were entrusted to his care, he refused to do a single
thing in connection with these cases. He did not file any
pleading to defend his client; he did not even enter his
appearance in these cases. Moreover, he disregarded the
complainant’s letters and electronic mails and rejected the
complainant’s phone calls. All the complainant was asking
for was a report of the status of the cases but the
respondent could not be reached no matter what the
complainant did to get in touch with him. After receipt of
the full amount of fees under the Retainer Agreement, he
simply disappeared, leaving the client defenseless and
plainly prejudiced in the cases against him. Warrants of
arrest were even issued against the complainant due to the
respondent’s gross and inexcusable negligence in failing to
ascertain the status of the case and to inform his client of
the arraignment. It was not a mere failure on the
respondent’s
128

part to inform the complainant of matters concerning

the cases, it was an unmistakable evasion of duty. To hide
from the complainant, avoid his calls, ignore his letters,

and leave him helpless is unforgivable; and to commit all
these acts and omissions after receiving the full amount of
legal fees and after assuring the client of his commitment
and responsibility violates the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes
anything done contrary to justice, modesty or good
morals.25 It is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in
the private and social duties which a man owes to his
fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty, or good morals.26 Representing to the
complainant that he would take care of the cases filed
against him,27 assuring the complainant that his property
involved in a civil case would be safeguarded,28 and then
collecting the full amount of legal fees of PhP900,000.00,
only to desert the complainant after receipt of the fees,
were manifestly deceitful and dishonest.
The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly
fiduciary. Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall observe candor,
fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his client.” Necessity and public interest enjoin
lawyers to be honest and truthful when dealing with his
client. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.29 However, instead of devoting himself to the client’s
cause, the respondent avoided the com-
_______________
25 In re Basa, 41 Phil. 275, 276 (1920), citing Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.
26 In re Gutierrez, AC No. L-363, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 661.
27 Rollo, at p. 4.
28 Id., at p. 26.
29 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 17.
129
VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 129

plainant, forgot about the cases he was handling for him

and ostensibly abandoned him. The client reposed his trust
in his lawyer with full faith that the lawyer would not
betray him or abscond from his responsibilities. By

assuring the complainant that he would take care of the
cases included in the Retainer Agreement, and even
accepting fees, the respondent defrauded the complainant
when he did not do a single thing he was expected to do.
A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.30 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.31 Respondent should
indeed be held liable, for he was not just incompetent, he
was practically useless; he was not just negligent, he was
indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant,
he prejudiced the client. Respondent’s inaction with respect
to the matters entrusted to his care is obvious; and his
failure to file an answer to the complaint for disbarment
against him and to attend the hearings in connection
therewith, without any explanation or request for
resetting, despite proper notice from the IBP, is clear
evidence of negligence on his part.
The Code of Professional Responsibility further provides
that a lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the
status of his case and to respond within a reasonable time
to the client’s request for information.32 The respondent did
the opposite. Despite the complainant’s efforts to consult
him and notwithstanding numerous attempts to contact
him, simply to ask for an update of the status of the cases,
the respondent was able to avoid the complainant and
never bothered to reply.
_______________
30 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18.

31 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18, Rule 18.03.
32 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18, Rule 18.04.
130

After months of waiting for a reply from the respondent,

and discovering that the respondent had been remiss in his
duties, the complainant demanded the return of the
documents he had turned over to the respondent. He also
demanded the return of the money he had paid for the legal
services that were not rendered and expenses of litigation
which were not incurred. However, the respondent rejected
the complainant’s demands.
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, provides that “a lawyer shall account for all
money and property collected or received for and from the
client.” The complainant paid $16,854.00 to the respondent
via telegraphic bank transfer. This was considered as
complete payment for the PhP900,000.00 that was
stipulated as the consideration for the legal services to be
rendered. However, since the respondent did not carry out
any of the services he was engaged to perform, nor did he
appear in court or make any payment in connection with
litigation, or give any explanation as to how such a large
sum of money was spent and allocated, he must
immediately return the money he received from the client
upon demand. However, he refused to return the money he
received from the complainant despite written demands,
and was not even able to give a single report regarding the
status of the cases.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an
attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of
fidelity to the client’s cause. Money entrusted to a lawyer
for a specific purpose—such as for filing fees—but not used
for failure to file the case, must immediately be returned to
the client on demand.33
In Sencio v. Calvadores,34 the respondent lawyer Sencio
was engaged to file a case, which he failed to do. His client
_______________
33 Barnachea v. Quiocho, A.C. No. 5925, March 11, 2003, 399 SCRA 1.
34 A.C. No. 5841, January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 393.
131
VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 131

demanded that he return the money which was paid to him

but he refused. Sencio similarly failed to answer the
complaint and disregarded the orders and notices of the
IBP on many occasions.35 The respondent lawyer was
ordered to return the money that he received from the
complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date
of the promulgation of the resolution until the return of the
amount.36
The practice of law is not a right, but a privilege. It is
granted only to those of good moral character.37 The Bar
must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair
dealing.38 Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond
reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their

clients or the public at large,39 and a violation of the high
moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension
and disbarment.40
The respondent demonstrated not only appalling
indifference and lack of responsibility to the courts and his
client but also a wanton disregard for his duties as a
lawyer. It is deplorable that members of the bar, such as
the respondent, betray not only the trust of their client, but
also public trust. For the practice of law is a profession, a
form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted
to those who are qualified and who possess good moral
character.41 Those who are unable or unwilling to comply
with the responsibilities and
_______________
35 Id.
36 See also Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners Association v.
Atty. Michael Dioneda, A.C. No. 5162, March 20, 2003, 399 SCRA 296.
37 People v. Santodides, G.R. No. 109149, December 21, 1999, 321
SCRA 310.
38 Maligsa v. Cabanting, A.C. No. 4539, May 14, 1997, 272 SCRA 408,
413.
39 Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017,
September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 406.
40 Ere v. Rubi, A.C. No. 5176, December 14, 1999, 320 SCRA 617.
41 Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, 74 Phil. 477 (1944).
132

meet the standards of the profession are unworthy of the

privilege to practice law. We must protect the
administration of justice by requiring those who exercise
this function to be competent, honorable and reliable in
order that the courts and clients may rightly repose
confidence in them.
In this case, we find that suspension for three years
recommended by the IBP is not sufficient punishment for
the unacceptable acts and omissions of respondent. The
acts of the respondent constitute malpractice and gross
misconduct in his office as attorney. His incompetence and
appalling indifference to his duty to his client, the courts
and society render him unfit to continue discharging the

trust reposed in him as a member of the bar. We could not
find any mitigating circumstances to recommend a lighter
penalty. For violating elementary principles of professional
ethics and failing to observe the fundamental duties of
honesty and good faith, the respondent has proven himself
unworthy of membership in this noble profession.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Godwin R.
Valdez is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys. He is ORDERED to
immediately return to Torben B. Overgaard the amount of
$16,854.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the
time of actual payment, with legal interest of six percent
(6%) per annum from November 27, 2006, the date of
extrajudicial demand. A twelve percent (12%) interest per
annum, in lieu of six percent (6%), shall be imposed on such
amount from the date of promulgation of this decision until
the payment thereof. He is further ORDERED to
immediately return all papers and documents received
from the complainant.
Copies of this Decision shall be served on the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and
all courts.
133
VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 133

SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,

Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-
Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro
and Brion, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., On Official Leave.
Atty. Godwin R. Valdez disbarred, his name ordered

stricken from Roll of Attorneys.
Notes.—The purpose of disbarment is not meant as a

punishment to deprive an attorney of a means of livelihood
but is rather intended to protect the courts and the public
from members of the bar who have become unfit and
unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession.
(Yap-Paras vs. Paras, 523 SCRA 358 [2007])
In view of the nature and consequences of a disciplinary
proceeding, observance of due process, as in other
JUDICIAL determinations, is imperative along with a

presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyer. (Salmingo
v. Rubica, 527 SCRA 1 [2007])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Overgaard Vs Valdez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Overgaard Vs Valdez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Overgaard Vs Valdez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 567

A.C. No. 7902. September 30, 2008.*

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; The appropriate penalty

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 119

Overgaard vs. Valdez

fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty,

therewith shall render him liable. Respondent should indeed be

120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Overgaard vs. Valdez

he was indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant,

the status of the cases. Acceptance of money from a client

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 121

Overgaard vs. Valdez

sufficient punishment for the unacceptable acts and omissions of

122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Overgaard vs. Valdez

charging the trust reposed in him as a member of the bar. We

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 123

fees, expenses of litigation, other legal incidental expenses,

124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

trusted to him. However, despite his continued efforts to

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 125

which was dismissed and under review at the Department

126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Overgaard vs. Valdez

December 11, 2007,23 and again, it was only the

“Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 127

appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of

128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

part to inform the complainant of matters concerning

from the complainant, avoid his calls, ignore his letters,

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 129

plainant, forgot about the cases he was handling for him

betray him or abscond from his responsibilities. By

30 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 18.

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

After months of waiting for a reply from the respondent,

Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 131

demanded that he return the money which was paid to him

reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

meet the standards of the profession are unworthy of the

and society render him unfit to continue discharging the

VOL. 567, SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 133

Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,

Atty. Godwin R. Valdez disbarred, his name ordered

Notes.—The purpose of disbarment is not meant as a

JUDICIAL determinations, is imperative along with a

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like