G.R. No. A.C. No. 7902; September 30, 2008
TORBEN B. OVERGAARD, Complainant, vs. ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Torben B. Overgaard, a Dutch national, through his business partner John Bradley, entered into a Retainer Agreement with respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez on December 16, 2005. For the amount of PhP900,000.00 (paid via telegraphic transfer of USD16,854.00), respondent agreed to represent complainant in several cases pending in Antipolo City, including both cases filed by and against complainant, and a dismissed complaint under appeal at the Department of Justice. The respondent assured complainant he would take care of the cases.
However, after receiving full payment, respondent failed to perform any legal services. He did not file entries of appearance in the criminal cases (Other Light Threats and violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) or in the civil case for Mandamus. He also neglected to file a Comment on the appealed Illegal Possession of Firearms complaint. Respondent ignored complainant’s repeated attempts to contact him for case updates starting April 11, 2006.
Due to respondent’s inaction, complainant discovered that warrants of arrest had been issued against him for failure to attend arraignments, about which respondent had not informed him. Complainant was forced to hire another lawyer to address these legal setbacks. On November 27, 2006, complainant demanded the return of the legal fees and case documents, but respondent remained unresponsive. This led to the filing of an administrative complaint for disbarment.
During the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), respondent failed to submit an Answer, attend the mandatory conference, or participate in clarificatory hearings, resulting in a default order. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a three-year suspension and restitution. The IBP Board of Governors approved this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez should be disbarred for gross malpractice, dishonesty, deceitful conduct, and abandonment of his client’s cause in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court DISBARRED respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court found that respondent committed multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including:
1. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 Engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct by accepting full payment and then abandoning the client.
2. Canon 15 Failing to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty to his client.
3. Canon 17 Breaching the duty to owe fidelity to the client’s cause.
4. Canon 18 and Rule 18.04 Neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him and failing to keep the client informed of case developments.
The Court emphasized that respondent’s actionsaccepting fees, disappearing, failing to perform any legal work, and causing prejudice to the client (including the issuance of arrest warrants)constituted gross misconduct, deceit, and malpractice. His conduct demonstrated a want of moral character, honesty, and probity, making him unfit to remain a member of the bar.
As a penalty, the Court imposed disbarment and ordered respondent to:
– Immediately return to complainant the amount of USD16,854.00 or its Philippine Peso equivalent, with legal interest of 6% per annum from November 27, 2006 (date of demand), and 12% per annum from the date of the decision’s promulgation until full payment.
– Immediately return all papers and documents received from complainant.
Copies of the decision were ordered served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and all courts.