Torben Overgaard vs Godwin Valdez A.C. no.

7902 March 31, 2009

Facts: Overgaard engaged the services of Atty. Valdez as his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed against him. Torben Overgaard filed a disbarment case against Atty. Valdez for despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees ofP900,000.00 as stipulated in a Retainer Agreement, Valdez refused to perform any of his obligations under their and, ignored the Overgaards request for report of the status of the cases entrusted, and rejected the complainants demands for the return of the money paid to him. For his part, Atty. Valdez failed to neither answer the complaint against him nor attend the hearing even with due notice. On September 30, 2008 the Court found Valdez to be guilty of violations of the canons of Code of Professional Responsibility his name was ordered to be stricken the roll of attorneys. October 21, 2008 filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He argued that he have no knowledge of the disbarment case filed against him. In September 2006 he abandoned his Makati office and Cavite residence and moved his office in Bukidnon where he also resided due to a threat on his person, and he was not able to receive the demands of Overgaard or orders and notices pertaining to the disbarment case. He also argued that he gave the Overgaard legal advice, and that he searched for and interviewed witnesses in relation to the cases he was handling for the latter. As for the 900, 000.00 pesos, he claimed that he gave 300,000.00 to two intelligence operatives to locate witnesses. He offered to return 250,000.00 but Overgaards partner refused to accept. But he was not able to present receipt made by the intelligence operatives nor other certification or receipts on how the money was spent to provide sufficient accounting. Held:

In abruptly abandoning his law office without advising his client and without making sure that the cases he was handling for his client were properly attended to during his absence, and without making arrangements whereby he would receive important mail, the Valdez is clearly guilty of gross negligence. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his clients and then rely on the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even assuming that there were serious threats to his person, this did not give him the permission to desert his client and leave the cases entrusted to his care hanging. He should have at least exercised reasonable and ordinary care and diligence by taking steps to ensure that the cases he was handling were attended to and that his clients interest was safeguarded. If it was not possible for him to handle the cases entrusted to his care, he 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 present him.

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This Courts en banc decision in Administrative Case No. 7902 dated September 30, 2008, entitled Torben B. Overgaard v. Atty. Godwin R. Valdez, is AFFIRMED