View full case

ROBERT VICTOR G. SEARES v. ATTY. SANIATA LIWLIWA V. GONZALES-ALZATE

FACTS:

Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate is charged with incompetence, professional negligence, and violation of the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. Complainant Robert Victor G. Seares, Jr. asserts that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was his legal counsel in his election protest when he ran for Municipal Mayor of Dolores, Abra in the May 2007 elections. However, the petition was dismissed for being "fatally defective." Atty. Gonzales-Alzate insisted on filing a second petition, which was also dismissed as time-barred and for forum shopping. Seares, Jr. also claims that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate intentionally made false and hurtful statements to attack him in an administrative case filed against him. He alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violated Canon 15, Canon 17, and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate denies the charges and states that Seares, Jr. and his parents decided not to appeal the dismissal of the first petition despite her advice, and that the allegations of negligence against her are unwarranted. She also refutes the charge of representing conflicting interests, explaining that she was engaged by different individuals who were not Seares, Jr.'s political opponents.

The issues to be determined are whether Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was guilty of professional negligence and incompetence in handling Seares, Jr.'s electoral protest, and whether she violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. The court dismisses the disbarment complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate, stating that the complaint is unfounded and devoid of substance.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the superimpositions made on the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition constituted professional negligence, warranting the dismissal of the petition.

  2. Whether Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violated Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests.

  3. Whether the administrative complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate for professional misconduct should be dismissed.

  4. Whether Mayor Seares should be admonished for filing a malicious complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate.

RULING:

  1. The superimpositions made on the verification and certification against forum shopping did not constitute professional negligence that would warrant the dismissal of the petition. The slipshod preparation of a court-bound document affects only the form and not the substance of the submission. Even assuming the superimpositions were true, it would not deserve administrative censure, as form should not prevail over substance.

  2. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not violate Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by representing conflicting interests. The previous engagement of the attorney should require her to use against a former client any confidential information gained from the previous professional relation to constitute a violation. In this case, the attorney did not use any confidential information gained from the previous engagement in her representation of Turqueza in an entirely unrelated matter. Moreover, there was no identity of parties or interests involved in the previous and present engagements. The allegation that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate represented the political opponent of Seares, Jr. was not true, as Turqueza was actually Seares, Jr.'s political ally.

  3. The administrative complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate is dismissed for lack of merit. The complainant failed to meet the burden of proof in establishing the allegation of professional misconduct.

  4. Mayor Seares is admonished for filing a malicious complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate. He is warned that a similar act against a member of the Bar in the future will be dealt with more severely as indirect contempt of the Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Slipshod preparation of a court-bound document affects only the form and not the substance of the submission.

  • Form should not prevail over substance in judicial proceedings.

  • Violation of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires intentional use against a former client of confidential information gained from the previous employment.

  • Accusation of professional misconduct is not synonymous with guilt.

  • An attorney enjoys the presumption of innocence, and whoever initiates administrative proceedings against the attorney bears the burden of proof to establish the allegation of professional misconduct.

  • The Court does not tolerate unwarranted and malicious assaults against the honor and reputation of attorneys, who are officers of the Court.

  • Complaints against attorneys must be filed in good faith and must not be made as an instrument of retaliation. Frivolous and baseless complaints may be subject to penalties.

  • The Court demonstrates its genuine concern for the members of the Bar and aims to protect their honor and reputation.