Date March 31,

Case Title Overgaard v. Valdez 2009

Ponente Per Curiam A.C. 7902

Doctrine

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a
privilege or franchise, and it may be extended or withheld by the Court in the exercise
of its sound discretion. As the guardian of the legal profession, the Court has ultimate
disciplinary power over members of the Bar in order to ensure that the highest
standards of competence and of honesty and fair-dealing are maintained.

Facts

Torben Overgaard engaged the services of Atty. Godwin Valdez as his counsel in 2
cases filed by him and 2 cases filed against him. Despite the receipt of the full amount
of legal fees in the amount of 900,000 PHP as stipulated in the Retainer Agreement,
Valdez refused to perform any of his obligations, ignored Overgaard’s request for a
report of the status of his cases, and rejected Overgaard’s demands for the return of
the money already paid to Valdez.

Overgaard filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Valdez before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP). Valdez did not participate during the investigation despite due
notice, and he was declared in default for failure to submit an Answer and attend the
mandatory conference.

The Court, thereafter, ruled for the disbarment of Valdez due to multiple violations of
the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was also ordered to return
the money paid by Overgaard as legal fees.

Valdez filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

Arguments

Overgaard (Petitioner): Valdez (Respondent):

• Valdez violated various Canons of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and should therefore
be disbarred
• The IBP has no jurisdiction over him,
since proof of service of the initiatory
pleading to the defendant is a
jurisdictional requirement. He “abruptly
abandoned” his office in Makati
because there were persistent and
serious threats to his physical safety
and security there. He was advised by
his friends and clients to stay “lie low”
so he moved back to Imus, Cavite then

ASL♕
 transferred to Malaybalay, Bukidnon.
Hence, he did not receive a copy of the
complaint or the decision.
• Because of the need to “abruptly
abandon” his office in Makati, he was
not able to keep in contact with his
clients. Nonetheless, he did not
abandon them.
• He only owed 600,000 PHP to
Overgaard, because although he
initially received 900,000 PHP, he
returned 300,000 PHP sometime in
July 2006 together with the documents
pertaining to Overgaard’s cases.

Issue(s)

(1) Did the IBP had jurisdiction to render a decision on Valdez’ disbarment case?
(2) Did Valdez’ act of leaving his office in Makati without informing his clients
constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
(3) Did the Court err ordering Valdez to pay the full amount of 900,000 PHP (plus
interest)?

Supreme Court Ruling

Valdez’ Motion for Reconsideration must be denied, and the Court’s decision for his
disbarment is affirmed. The Court emphasized that the right to practice law is not a
natural or constitutional right, but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise, and it may
be extended or withheld by the Court in the exercise of its sound discretion. As the
guardian of the legal profession, the Court has ultimate disciplinary power over
members of the Bar in order to ensure that the highest standards of competence and
of honesty and fair-dealing are maintained. Valdez has fallen below such exacting
standard and is unworthy of the privilege to practice law.

(1) Yes. Copies of the Complaint and the Order to Answer were sent to his office
address in Makati. The Registry Return Receipt for such deliveries were signed
by one “RRJ” on the space for the signature of the addressee’s agent. Valdez
cannot now claim lack of knowledge of such deliveries.

Also, even if he had to “lie low” due to threats to his life and safety, this does
not mean that he can simply avoid the responsibility of taking account of his
mail. He owes it to himself and his clients to adopt a system whereby he would
be able to receive the mail sent to his Makati office even during his absence.

ASL♕
(2) Yes. Based on the circumstances and on Valdez’ own admissions, he evidently
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by abandoning his clients,
especially Overgaard, who had already paid the legal fees in full.

A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his clients, and then rely on
the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even assume that
there were indeed such threats, this did not give him the permission to desert
his client and leave the cases entrusted to his care hanging.

(3) No. If it were true that Valdez indeed returned part of the money and the
documents pertaining to Overgaard’s cases, he would have presented proof of
accounting and a receipt of the turnover. Since he failed to present any
evidence therefor, the Court cannot rely on his bare allegation.

It is a lawyer’s duty to properly account for the money he received from his
client. It was his duty to make an accounting therefor. Since he failed to
present any proof that he had already returned part of the money, and also
failed to provide an accounting for how the money was spent.

ASL♕