View full case

TORBEN B. OVERGAARD v. ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ

FACTS:

Partial Digest:

Complainant Torben B. Overgaard entered into a Retainer Agreement with respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez for legal services in two cases filed by him and two cases filed against him. The agreement included fees for acceptance and attorney's fees, expenses of litigation, other legal incidental expenses, and appearance fees. The cases involved various criminal and civil complaints pending in Antipolo City. Complainant paid the respondent the full amount of the agreed legal fees through telegraphic bank transfer. However, despite numerous attempts to contact the respondent and request for updates on the cases, the respondent failed to perform his obligations and ignored the complainant's demands for a report on the status of the cases. It was later discovered that the respondent did not file necessary documents, failed to enter appearance in certain cases, and did not inform the complainant of important developments, such as arraignments and warrants of arrest issued against him. Due to the respondent's neglect, the complainant had to hire another lawyer to address the legal matters. The complainant eventually demanded the return of the money paid and the documents turned over to the respondent, but the respondent remained unresponsive. As a result, the complainant filed an administrative complaint against the respondent, which proceeded ex parte after the respondent failed to comply with the order to submit an answer and attend the mandatory conference. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violating several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended a three-year suspension from the practice of law. The recommendation was approved by the IBP Board of Governors. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP and determined that the respondent committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent should be disbarred or suspended based on the grounds of deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, willful disobedience of a lawful order, and willful appearance as an attorney without authority.

  2. Whether the respondent's conduct constitutes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  3. Whether the respondent's conduct violates the lawyer's duty of candor, fairness, loyalty, competence, and diligence.

    • Whether the respondent lawyer violated Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to account for the money and property collected from the client
    • Whether the respondent lawyer should return the money he received from the client upon demand
    • Whether the respondent's failure to file the case and provide any explanation on the use of the money warrants disciplinary action

RULING:

  1. The respondent should be disbarred or suspended based on various grounds, including deceit, malpractice, grossly immoral conduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, willful disobedience of a lawful order, and willful appearance as an attorney without authority. The respondent's conduct of neglecting, abandoning, and refusing to handle his clients' cases, as well as evading their calls and letters, violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and demonstrates a lack of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor. The respondent's actions of assuring the client of his commitment and responsibility, collecting legal fees, and then deserting the client without performing any work were deceitful and dishonest.

  2. The respondent lawyer violated Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to account for the money and property collected or received from the client. The respondent must immediately return the money he received from the client upon demand.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

  • The attorney-client relationship is highly fiduciary, requiring lawyers to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in their dealings with their clients, as provided in Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • Lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence and may be held liable for neglecting a legal matter entrusted to them.

  • The Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to keep their clients informed of the status of their cases and to respond within a reasonable time to their requests for information.

  • 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 but not used for failure to fulfill that purpose must be immediately returned to the client on demand.

  • Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times and must comply with the responsibilities and meet the standards of the legal profession.

  • Violation of the high moral standards and failure to observe the fundamental duties of honesty and good faith may lead to suspension or disbarment.