A.C. No.

7902               March 31, 2009 

TORBEN B. OVERGAARD, Complainant, 
vs. 
ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ, Respondent. 
 
Facts 
 The complainant, Torben Overgaard (Overgaard) engaged the services of
respondent Valdez as his legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed
against him. Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees of ₱900,000.00 as
stipulated in a Retainer Agreement, the respondent refused to perform any of his
obligations under their contract for legal services, ignored the complainant’s request
for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to his care, and rejected the
complainant’s demands for the return of the money paid to him. 
 Complainant Overgaard filed a complaint for disbarment against Valdez before
the IBP. During the investigation, respondent Valdez did not participate despite due
notice. He was declared in default for failure to submit an answer and attend the
mandatory conference. He did not submit a position paper or attend the hearing. 
 On September 30, 2008, this Court held that respondent Valdez committed
multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
dispositive portion of this Decision states: 
 IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez is hereby
DISBARRED and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
He is ORDERED to immediately return to Torben B. Overgaard the amount of
$16,854.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency at the time of actual
payment, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from November
27, 2006, the date of extra-judicial demand. A twelve percent (12%) interest
per annum, in lieu of six percent (6%), shall be imposed on such amount from
the date of promulgation of this decision until the payment thereof. He is
further ORDERED to immediately return all papers and documents received
from the complainant. 
Issue 
Whether or not Atty. Godwin R. Valdez violated the canons of Code of
Professional Responsibility when he abandon his client. 
Ruling 
Yes. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This
Court’s en banc decision in Administrative Case No. 7902 dated September 30, 2008,
entitled Torben B. Overgaard v. Atty. Godwin R. Valdez, is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
A.C. No. 6057             June 27, 2006 
PETER T. DONTON, Complainant, 
vs. 
ATTY. EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO, Respondent. 
 
Facts 
 In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton ("complainant") stated that
he filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public document against
Duane O. Stier ("Stier"), Emelyn A. Maggay ("Maggay") and respondent, as the
notary public who notarized the Occupancy Agreement. 
 The disbarment complaint arose when respondent filed a counter-charge for
perjury5 against complainant. Respondent, in his affidavit-complaint, stated that: 
 The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT dated September 11, 1995 was
prepared and notarized by me under the following
circumstances: 
 A. Mr. Duane O. Stier is the owner and long-time resident of a real
property located at No. 33 Don Jose Street, Bgy. San Roque,
Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City. 
 B. Sometime in September 1995, Mr. Stier – a U.S. citizen and
thereby disqualified to own real property in his name – agreed that
the property be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a Filipino. 
 C. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested me to
prepare several documents that would guarantee recognition of him
being the actual owner of the property despite the transfer of title in the
name of Mr. Donton. 
 D. For this purpose, I prepared, among others, the OCCUPANCY
AGREEMENT, recognizing Mr. Stier’s free and undisturbed use of the
property for his residence and business operations. The OCCUPANCY
AGREEMENT was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had extended to
Mr. Donton. 
 In her Report dated 26 February 2004 ("Report"), Commissioner Milagros V. San
Juan ("Commissioner San Juan") of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found
respondent liable for taking part in a "scheme to circumvent the constitutional
prohibition against foreign ownership of land in the Philippines." Commissioner San
Juan recommended respondent’s suspension from the practice of law for two years
and the cancellation of his commission as Notary Public. 
Issue 
Whether or not respondent is liable of a “scheme to circumvent the constitutional
prohibition against foreign ownership of land in the Philippines.” and thus violating his
oath to support and protect the Constitution. 
Ruling 
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco GUILTY of violation
of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly,
we SUSPEND respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco from the practice of law
for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision. 
Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the
Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law
against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to
achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he
may be suspended.