The Supreme Court affirmed the disbarment of Atty. Godwin R. Valdez for gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Valdez failed to fulfill his contractual obligations to his client, Torben B. Overgaard, after receiving full legal fees, and then abandoned his practice without properly informing his client or ensuring the continuity of legal services. The Court emphasized that lawyers must uphold their duty to clients with diligence and competence, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of the trust reposed in them, warranting the severe penalty of disbarment.

Attorney’s Desertion: When “Lying Low” Leads to Disbarment

This case revolves around the complaint filed by Torben B. Overgaard against his former legal counsel, Atty. Godwin R. Valdez. Overgaard engaged Valdez for legal representation in several cases, paying him a total of P900,000.00. However, Valdez failed to perform his duties under the Retainer Agreement, neglecting the cases and ignoring Overgaard’s attempts to communicate. Adding insult to injury, he then claimed to have abandoned his Makati office due to perceived threats, relocating to Bukidnon without properly informing his clients or arranging for the handling of pending cases. This led to disbarment proceedings where Valdez failed to appear, leading the Supreme Court to rule against him and order his disbarment. The central legal question is whether Valdez’s actions constituted gross misconduct and a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, justifying his removal from the legal profession.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers are expected to serve their clients with competence and diligence, properly representing their client in court, attending scheduled hearings, preparing and filing required pleadings, prosecuting the cases entrusted to their care with reasonable dispatch, and urging their termination without waiting for their client or the court to prod them to do so. They should not idly sit by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.

Valdez’s claim of lacking knowledge of the disbarment proceedings was also dismissed. The Court found that notices were sent to his registered office address, the same address reflected on his letterhead and Retainer Agreement. Receipt of these notices by his agent, RRJ, was deemed sufficient notice. He could not claim ignorance because the notices in connection with the proceedings were sent to his office address made known to the public and properly received by his agent. Rule 138, Section 30 of the Rules of Court allows the court to proceed ex parte when an attorney fails to appear and answer accusations despite reasonable notice:

SECTION 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear and answer the accusation, the court may proceed to determine the matter ex parte. (Emphasis supplied.)

Moreover, the Court criticized Valdez’s sudden abandonment of his practice without proper notification to his clients. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his clients and then rely on the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. The respondent should have informed the complainant of his predicament and asked that he be allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel who could properly represent him. The court held that even assuming genuine threats to his safety, Valdez was still obligated to take steps to safeguard his clients’ interests.

Addressing Valdez’s claim that he did perform some services for Overgaard, the Court clarified that his disbarment was rooted in his abandonment of his client, not merely the absence of any action. Valdez also failed to properly account for the P900,000.00 he received. Even if the respondent told the client that he would pay P300,000.00 to two intelligence operatives, as he claims in his Motion for Reconsideration, he should have held this money in trust, and he was under an obligation to make an accounting. It was his duty to secure a receipt for the payment of this amount on behalf of his client. The Court highlighted the fiduciary duty lawyers owe their clients, including the proper accounting of funds entrusted to them.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Valdez’s neglect of his client’s cases, abandonment of his legal practice without proper notification, and failure to account for received funds constituted gross misconduct warranting disbarment. The Court found that Valdez had indeed violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus justifying disbarment.
Why was Atty. Valdez disbarred?	Atty. Valdez was disbarred because he abandoned his client, failed to perform his contractual obligations, did not account for the money he received, and neglected his cases, all of which violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The court determined that these actions constituted gross misconduct and a breach of the trust placed in him as a member of the bar.
What is the duty of a lawyer to their client?	A lawyer has a duty to serve their client with competence and diligence, which includes proper representation in court, attending hearings, preparing pleadings, prosecuting cases with reasonable dispatch, and ensuring the client is informed and protected throughout the legal process. Furthermore, attorneys are expected to handle client funds responsibly.
What constitutes abandonment of a client by a lawyer?	Abandonment occurs when a lawyer neglects a client’s case without proper notification, fails to take steps to protect the client’s interests, or disappears without ensuring the continuity of legal services. Claiming that he feared for his safety, did not allow Valdez to abandon his duty to keep his client reasonably informed of his cases.
What happens if a lawyer doesn’t appear in court after due notice?	If a lawyer fails to appear in court after due notice in disciplinary proceedings, the court may proceed with the matter ex parte, meaning it can make a decision based on the evidence presented, even without the lawyer’s presence. This is pursuant to Rule 138, Section 30 of the Rules of Court.
Why was it important that the notices were received at Atty. Valdez’s office?	The court found it significant that the notices were received at Atty. Valdez’s registered office because this address was made known to the public and was the address listed in his Retainer Agreement. Even if Valdez had moved, he had a responsibility to ensure mail sent to this address was properly received and addressed.
Is the right to practice law a natural right?	No, the right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but a privilege granted by the Supreme Court. This privilege can be withheld if a lawyer fails to meet the required standards of competence, honesty, and fair dealing, as determined by the Court.
What is the Code of Professional Responsibility?	The Code of Professional Responsibility outlines the ethical and professional standards that all lawyers in the Philippines must adhere to. It includes duties to clients, the courts, the legal profession, and society, ensuring that lawyers act with integrity and competence.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a strong reminder of the serious consequences for attorneys who neglect their duties and betray the trust placed in them. Upholding the standards of the legal profession and protecting the interests of clients remains the utmost priority.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: TORBEN B. OVERGAARD VS. ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ, G.R. No. 48122, March 31, 2009