G.R. No. A.C. No. 7902, March 31, 2009
Torben B. Overgaard, Complainant, vs. Atty. Godwin R. Valdez, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Torben B. Overgaard engaged the services of respondent Atty. Godwin R. Valdez as his legal counsel in four cases, paying the full legal fee of ₱900,000.00 as stipulated in a Retainer Agreement. Despite receiving payment, respondent refused to perform his obligations, ignored complainant’s requests for case updates, and rejected demands for the return of the money and documents. Overgaard filed a disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline. During the IBP investigation, respondent did not participate despite due notice; he was declared in default for failing to submit an answer, attend the mandatory conference, or file a position paper. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated September 30, 2008, disbarred respondent for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and ordered him to return the amount of $16,854.00 (or its Philippine Peso equivalent) with interest, and all documents received from complainant. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing he had no knowledge of the disbarment proceedings due to his abrupt relocation from his Makati office to Bukidnon in September 2006 because of alleged threats to his safety, and that he had meritorious defenses that would exonerate him if given an opportunity to be heard.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent was given reasonable notice of the disbarment complaint and proceedings.
2. Whether respondent committed multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting disbarment.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration and AFFIRMED the September 30, 2008 Decision disbarring respondent.
1. On the issue of notice: The Court held that respondent was given reasonable notice. The Complaint and IBP Order to answer were sent to his Makati office address, which was indicated in his letterhead and known to the public and complainant. The Registry Return Receipt showed receipt by an agent (“RRJ”). Subsequent notices were also sent to the same address. Respondent’s claim of ignorance due to relocation was unacceptable; as a lawyer, he had a duty to adopt a system to receive mail, especially from clients and courts. His abrupt abandonment of his office did not excuse him from maintaining communication. Under Rule 138, Section 30 of the Rules of Court, the IBP correctly proceeded ex parte as respondent failed to appear and answer despite reasonable notice.
2. On the issue of violations: The Court found that respondent committed multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By abandoning his law office without advising his client, ensuring cases were properly attended to, or arranging for mail receipt, he was grossly negligent. Even assuming threats to his safety, this did not justify deserting his client or neglecting cases. He also violated his fiduciary duty by failing to account for the ₱900,000.00 received, render a proper accounting, or return the money and documents upon demand. His actions demonstrated dishonesty, bad faith, and a failure to uphold the fundamental duties of a lawyer. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege, and respondent’s conduct fell below the required standards of competence, honesty, and fair dealing, making him unfit to remain a member of the bar.