OVERGAARD V. VALDEZ / A.C. No. 7902 / September 30, 2008.

FACTS
Overgaard engaged the services of Atty. Valdez providing that for P900,000.00, Valdez would
represent Overgaard as counsel in 2 cases filed by him and 2 cases filed against him. Overgaard
sent $16, 854 to Atty. Valdez via telegraphic bank transfer. Four months after, Overgaard
demanded for a report on the status of his cases. In spite of many phone calls and emails,
Valdez couldn’t be reached. Hence, Overgaard inquired on his own, and discovered that Valdez
didn’t file his entry of appearance in any of the cases, that a counter-affidavit was required
from him, and that the criminal cases against him have already been arraigned and warrants
were issued for his arrest. He was constrained to find a new lawyer. Overgaard then wrote
again and tried to locate Valdez to demand the return of documents entrusted to the latter, as
well as the $16,000.00 payment. No word was heard from Valdez. Overgaard filed a case with
the IBP for Valdez’s dismissal for gross malpractice, immoral character, dishonesty and deceitful
conduct. The IBP required Valdez to file an answer, but he did not comply. He also failed to
attend the hearing and was declared in default. Later, a clarificatory hearing was set, but Valdez
never showed.

ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Valdez should be disbarred for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility

RULING
Yes. Respondent lawyer was not just incompetent, he was practically useless; he was not just
negligent, he was indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant, he prejudiced the
client. Deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes anything done contrary
tojustice,
modesty or good morals—it is an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social
duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals. A lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the status of his
case and to respond within a reasonable time to the client’s request for information. Where a
lawyer did not carry out any of the services he was engaged to perform, nor did he appear in
court or make any payment in connection with litigation, or give any explanation as
to how such a large sum of money was spent and allocated, he must immediately return the
money he received from the client upon demand The practice of law is a profession, a form of
public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess
good moral character—those who are unable or unwilling to comply with the responsibilities
and meet the standards of the profession are unworthy of the privilege to practice law.
Respondent lawyer’s incompetence and appalling indiference to his duty to his client, the
courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging the trust reposed in him as a
member of the bar. Atty. Valdez was disbarred.