Adm. Case No. 9058 : November 14, 2012 ROBERT VICTOR G. EARE , !R., Complainant, v. ATT".

ANIATA #I$#I$A V. GON%A#E & A#%ATE, Respondent. 'ECI ION BER A(IN, J.: Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate is charged with incompetence and professional negligence, and a violation of the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. Complainant obert Victor G. Seares, !r. is her former client. Seares, !r. alleges that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was his legal co"nsel when he ran for the position of #"nicipal #ayor of $olores, Abra in the #ay %&&' elections( that after he lost by a )&-vote margin to Albert *. G"zman, she filed in his behalf a +,etition -f ,rotest Ad Ca"telam+ . in the egional 3rial Co"rt 4 3C5 in 6ang"ed, Abra( that the petition was dismissed for being +fatally defective(+ % that several months later, she insisted on filing a +,etition of ,rotest+ in the 3C, b"t the petition was also dismissed on the gro"nd that it was already time-barred, and on the f"rther gro"nd of for"m shopping beca"se the certification against for"m shopping was false( that the 3C declared her as +professionally negligent(+7 that he again ran for #"nicipal #ayor of $olores, Abra in the #ay %&.& elections, and won( that he later learned that his political opponents retained her as their co"nsel(8 that with him barely two months in office, one Carlito 3"r9"eza charged him with ab"se of a"thority, oppression and grave miscond"ct in the Sangg"niang ,anlalawigan of Abra( ) that she represented 3"r9"eza as co"nsel(: and that she intentionally made false and h"rtf"l statements in the memorand"m she prepared in that administrative case in order to attac; him. '
/0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll

Seares, !r. asserts that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate thereby violated Canon .), Canon .' and Canon .< of the Code of ,rofessional esponsibility for negligently handling his election protest, for prosec"ting him, her former client, and for "ttering false and h"rtf"l allegations against him. =ence, he prays that she sho"ld be disbarred. >n her comment,< Atty. Gonzales-Alzate denies the charges of professional negligence and incompetence, and of representing conflicting interests. She states that Seares, !r. solicited her legal services in the last wee; of #ay %&&' beca"se his co"nsel, Atty. ?asser L"mbos, informed him that he co"ld not go to Abra to handle his ad ca"telam petition( @ that Seares, !r. and his parents were themselves the ones who decided not anymore to appeal the dismissal of the ad ca"telam petition despite her advice that an appeal wo"ld li;ely s"cceed(.& that she did not convince Seares, !r. to file the second petition beca"se he and his parents were the ones who insisted on filing the appeal in disregard of the possibly adverse conse9"ences of doing so( .. and that the imp"tation of negligence against her based on the trial A"dges declaration that she s"bmitted a false certification against for"m shopping was "nwarranted, beca"se all that she did was to ma;e s"perimpositions in the certification against for"m shopping in order to write the correct dates as well as the notarial doc"ment n"mber and notarial doc;et page n"mber for the certification against for"m shopping.
/0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll

Atty. Gonzales-Alzate ref"tes the charge that she represented conflicting interests by eBplaining thatC 4a5 she was engaged as an attorney in the #ay %&.& elections only by $ominic Valera 4a candidate for #"nicipal #ayor of 6ang"ed, Abra5 and by ,resident A9"ino, neither of whom was Seares, !r.s political opponent(.% 4b5 Carlito 3"r9"eza "sed to be a political ally of Seares, !r.( .7 4c5 she disclosed to 3"r9"eza her having once acted as a co"nsel of Seares, !r.( .8 4d5 Seares, !r. did not obAect to her legal representation of 3"r9"eza( .) and 4e5 the %&&' election protest that she handled for Seares, !r. was "nrelated to the administrative complaint that 3"r9"eza bro"ght against Seares, !r. in %&.&. .:
/0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll

>ss"es 3o be determined are the following iss"es, namelyC

4a5 Das Atty. Gonzales-Alzate g"ilty of professional negligence and incompetence in her handling of Seares, !r.s electoral protest in the 3CE 4b5 $id Atty. Gonzales-Alzate violate the prohibition against representing conflicting interests when she assisted 3"r9"eza in his administrative case against Seares, !r., her former clientE "ling 3he severity of disbarment or s"spension proceedings as the penalty for an attorneys miscond"ct has always moved the Co"rt to treat the complaint with "tmost ca"tion and deliberate circ"mspection. De have done so beca"se we m"st wield the power to disbar or s"spend on the preservative rather than on the vindictive principle,.' conformably with o"r thin;ing that disbarment or s"spension will be condign and appropriate only when there is a clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of miscond"ct serio"sly affecting the professional standing and ethics of respondent attorney as an officer of the Co"rt and as a member of the 6ar..<
/0r12ll /0r12ll

G"ided by the foregoing tenets, we dismiss the disbarment complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate. >. Charge of professional negligence and incompetence is "nfo"nded and devoid of s"bstance Seares, !r. insists that Atty. Gonzales-Alzates s"bmission of a +fatally defective+ petition in his election protest violated Canon .'.@ and Canon .<%& of the Code of ,rofessional esponsibility, claiming that her attaching a +c"t-and-paste+ certificate of non-for"m shopping to his election protest, which the trial co"rts decision described as +professional negligence,+ reflected her lac; of diligence and competence as an attorney beca"se it was fatal to his protest.
/0r12ll /0r12ll

3he complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate is "nfo"nded and devoid of s"bstance. For administrative liability "nder Canon .< to attach, the negligent act of the attorney sho"ld be gross%. and ineBc"sable%% as to lead to a res"lt that was highly preA"dicial to the clients interest.%7 Accordingly, the Co"rt has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly negligent attorney for "nreasonable fail"re to file a re9"ired pleading, %8 or for "nreasonable fail"re to file an appeal,%) especially when the fail"re occ"rred after the attorney moved for several eBtensions to file the pleading%: and offered several eBc"ses for his nonfeasance. %' 3he Co"rt has fo"nd the attendance of ineBc"sable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong remedy, %< or belatedly files an appeal,%@ or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint, 7& or fails to attend sched"led co"rt hearings.7. Gross miscond"ct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circ"mstances of the case, the nat"re of the act done and the motive that ind"ced the attorney to commit the act. 7%
/0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll

?et, a reading of the !"ne <, %&&' order of the 3C 46ranch >5 in 6ang"ed, Abra shows that the tr"e ca"se of the dismissal of Seares, !r.s +,etition For ,rotest Ad Ca"telam+ was its premat"rity in light of the pendency in the Commission on Glections of his +,etition to S"spend Canvass and ,roclamation.+77 3he 3C cogently held that +4t5he primary obAective of this petition is to pray for the iss"ance of a ,reliminary ,reca"tion -rder BBB 4b"t5 a prayer for the iss"ance of the protection of ballot boBes, 6oo;s and Lists of Voters and other election paraphernalia in the recently concl"ded elections is well within the power of the Commission on Glections.+ 78 De see no trace of professional negligence or incompetence on the part of Atty. Gonzales-Alzate in her handling of Seares, !r.s protest, especially beca"se she even filed in his behalf a +#otion for econsideration,+ 7) a +Comment on the Co"rts $ismissal of the ,rotest Ad Ca"telam+ 7: and a +#otion to Dithdraw Cash $eposit.+7' 6esides, her eBplanation that it was Seares, !r. himself who decided not to p"rs"e the appeal and who instead re9"ested her to move for the withdrawal of his cash deposit was very pla"sible.
/0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll

Also, we cannot find Atty. Gonzales-Alzate professionally negligent in respect of the filing and event"al dismissal of the s"bse9"ent +,etition for ,rotest.+ 3he verification and certification against for"m shopping attached to the petition contained handwritten s"perimpositions by Atty. Gonzales-Alzate, b"t s"ch s"perimpositions were apparently made only to reflect the corrections of the dates of s"bscription and the notarial doc"ment n"mber and doc;et n"mber for the verification and certification. >f that was all there was to the s"perimpositions, then there was nothing to s"pport the trial A"dges observation that the +c"t and paste+ method in preparing the verification and certification for non-for"m shopping constit"ted +professional negligence+ that proved fatal to her clients protest.7< As a matter of policy, a co"rt-bo"nd doc"ment or paper prepared in a slipshod manner affects only the form b"t not the s"bstance of the s"bmission. S"ch slipshod preparation, even ass"ming it to be tr"e, wo"ld not deserve administrative cens"re. Hot letting form prevail over s"bstance still remains to be the A"dicial ideal.
/0r12ll

3he foregoing notwithstanding, we do"bt the sincerity of the charge of professional negligence and incompetence. =ad Seares, !r. been preA"diced by Atty. Gonzales-Alzates negligent and incompetent handling of his election protest, we wonder why he wo"ld deno"nce her only after nearly five years have passed. 3he motivation for the charge becomes s"spect, and the charge is thereby wea;ened all the more. >>. Charge of representing conflicting interests is bereft of merit Seares, !r. neBt charges Gonzales-Alzate with violating Canon .) of the Code of ,rofessional esponsibility for s"pposedly representing conflicting interests when she too; on the administrative complaint that 3"r9"eza bro"ght against Seares, !r. 3he charge of Seares, !r. is bereft of merit. Canon .) of the Code of ,rofessional esponsibility prohibits an attorney from representing a party in a controversy that is either directly or indirectly related to the s"bAect matter of a previo"s litigation involving another client. elevantly, "le .).&., "le.).&% and "le.).&7 provideC
chanroble svirt"allawlibrary

"le .).&.A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter wo"ld involve a conflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client. "le .).&%A lawyer shall be bo"nd by the r"le on privilege comm"nication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client. "le .).&7A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests eBcept by written consent of all concerned given after a f"ll disclos"re of the facts. Atty. Gonzales-Alzates legal representation of 3"r9"eza neither res"lted in her betrayal of the fidelity and loyalty she owed to Seares, !r. as his former attorney, nor invited the s"spicion of "nfaithf"lness or do"ble dealing while she was performing her d"ties as an attorney. 7@ epresenting conflicting interests wo"ld occ"r only where the attorneys new engagement wo"ld re9"ire her to "se against a former client any confidential information gained from the previo"s professional relation. 8& 3he prohibition did not cover a sit"ation where the s"bAect matter of the present engagement was totally "nrelated to the previo"s engagement of the attorney. 8. 3o constit"te the violation, the attorney sho"ld be shown to intentionally "se against the former client the confidential information ac9"ired by her d"ring the previo"s employment.8% 6"t a mere allegation of professional miscond"ct wo"ld not s"ffice to establish the charge, beca"se acc"sation was not synonymo"s with g"ilt. 87
/0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll

As it t"rned o"t, the charge of representing conflicting interests leveled against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was imaginary. 3he charge was immediately "nworthy of serio"s consideration beca"se it was clear from the start that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate did not ta;e advantage of her previo"s engagement by Seares, !r. in her legal representation of 3"r9"eza in the latters administrative charge against Seares, !r. 3here was no indication whatsoever of her having gained any confidential information d"ring her previo"s engagement by Seares, !r. that co"ld be "sed against Seares, !r. =er engagement by Seares, !r. related only to the election protest in %&&', b"t 3"r9"ezas complaint involved Seares, !r.s s"pposedly "nlawf"l interference in o"sting 3"r9"eza as the president of the Liga ng mga 6arangay of $olores, Abra in %&.&. 3here is no 9"estion that both charges were entirely foreign to one another. #oreover, the prohibition against representing conflicting interests f"rther necessitated identity of the parties or interests involved in the previo"s and present engagements. 6"t s"ch identity was not tr"e here. 3he adverse party in Seares, !r.s election protest in %&&' was Albert *. G"zman, the newlyelected #"nicipal #ayor of $olores, Abra, who was not involved in 3"r9"ezas administrative complaint against Seares, !r. >n fact, 3"r9"eza was not even a mayoral candidate in $olores, Abra in the elections held in %&&' and in %&.&. 3he allegation by Seares, !r. that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate represented his political opponent was not even tr"e beca"se 3"r9"eza was Seares, !r.s political ally, as Atty. Gonzales-Alzate stated. >t is notable, too, that Seares, !r. eBpressly agreed to Atty. Gonzales-Alzates legal representation of 3"r9"eza in the latters administrative case against Seares, !r. 3his is borne o"t by the affidavit of 3"r9"eza that Atty. Gonzales-Alzate s"bmitted, 88 the relevant portion of which followsC
/0r12ll

BBB :. Dhen #ayor obert Victor Seares arrived, he was with a blac; shirt and Aeans and the Vice Governor started the conference as;ing "s if there is a possibility of amicable settlement. Atty. #a. Saniata Liwliwa Gonzales-Alzate first tal;ed and she raised the fact that in %&&' #ayor obert Victor Seares was her client in an election protest and she even said how she represented him, and #ayor Seares said +wen Attorney 4yes Attorney5 and the Atty. Gonzales-Alzate said to all of "s in the said room that she was before the lawyer of !r. Seares 4#ayor obert Victor Seares5 and now if !r. will not oppose it, she will be representing me in the said administrative case and this time, she will now be a lawyer against !r. Seares. 3he said lawyer was even smiling when she said that and !r. Seares 4#ayor obert Victor Seares5 was normally giggling and smiling and said +wen attorney, awan ti ;"a; dita, iyabogad"am latta a, is"na lang a ni ;apitan no nya paylang ti ;ayatna, nayted la ngar"d s"eldo nan+ 4?es, attorney, > have no concern with that, yo" lawyer for him if that is so, > dont ;now what the 4barangay5 captain wo"ld still want, his salary was already released to him.5 BBB. BBB 3he Co"rt emphasizes that an attorney enAoys the pres"mption of innocence, and whoever initiates administrative proceedings against the attorney bears the b"rden of proof to establish the allegation of professional miscond"ct.8) Dhen the complainant fails to discharge the b"rden of proof, the Co"rt has no alternative b"t to dismiss the charge and absolve the attorney.
/0r12ll

De find that the administrative complaint against Atty. Gonzales-Alzate was nothing b"t an attempt to veB, harass and h"miliate her as well as to get even with her for representing 3"r9"eza against Seares, !r. S"ch an ill-motivated bid to disbar Atty. Gonzales-Alzate trifles with the Co"rts esteem for the members of the 6ar who form one of the solid pillars of !"stice in o"r land. De cannot tolerate it beca"se attorneys are officers of the Co"rt who are placed "nder o"r s"pervision and control d"e to the law imposing "pon them pec"liar d"ties, responsibilities and liabilities. 8: De eBist in a symbiotic environment with them where their d"ty to defend the co"rts is reciprocated by o"r shielding them from vindictive individ"als who are deterred by nothing A"st to strip them of their privilege to practice law.
/0r12ll

>n $e Leon v. Castelo,8' we "nderscored the need to shield attorneys as officers of the Co"rt from the mindless assa"lts intended to veB or harass them in their performance of d"ty, statingC
/0r12ll chanroblesvirt"allawlibrary

According to !"stice Cardozo, +BBB the fair fame of a lawyer, however innocent of wrong, is at the mercy of the tong"e of ignorance or malice. ep"tation in s"ch a calling is a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored.+ A lawyers rep"tation is, indeed, a very fragile obAect. 3he Co"rt, whose officer every lawyer is, m"st shield s"ch fragility from mindless assa"lt by the "nscr"p"lo"s and the malicio"s. >t can do so, firstly, by 9"ic;ly c"tting down any patently frivolo"s complaint against a lawyer( and, secondly, by demanding good faith from whoever brings any acc"sation of "nethical cond"ct. A 6ar that is ins"lated from intimidation and harassment is enco"raged to be co"rageo"s and fearless, which can then best contrib"te to the efficient delivery and proper administration of A"stice. 8<
/0r12ll

>n Lim v. Antonio,8@ we cens"red the complainant beca"se revenge and bad faith had motivated him into filing a baseless complaint against an attorney, stressingC
/0r12ll chanroblesvirt"allawlibrary

3he dignity and honor of the profession re9"ire that acts "nworthy of membership in the bar sho"ld be visited with the appropriate penalty. 3he charge against respondent is of a serio"s character. >f in fact there was s"ch a violation of the law as charged, he sho"ld be d"ly penalized. >t is 9"ite clear, however, that the complaint is "nfo"nded. >t was the prod"ct of ill-will, the desire of complainant to avenge himself. >t certainly was not made in good faith. >f it were so, its dismissal wo"ld have s"fficed. 3o repeat, s"ch is not the case. As the eport made clear, the complaint arose from a feeling of resentment, even of hate. 3o allow complainant to trifle with the Co"rt, to ma;e "se of the A"dicial process as an instr"ment of retaliation, wo"ld be a reflection on the r"le of law. =e sho"ld be held to strict acco"ntability, considering that this is his second attempt. S"ch st"bbornness, compo"nds the gravity of his offense. =e appears to be incorrigible. At the very least, therefore, he sho"ld be cens"red.)&
/0r12ll

De have often demonstrated o"r gen"ine concern for the members of the 6ar, especially those who stand before o"r co"rts as ethical advocates of their clients ca"ses. De definitely do not tolerate "nwarranted and malicio"s assa"lts against their honor and rep"tation. 3he Co"rt iss"ed a stern warning to the complainant attorney in $ela Victoria v. -rig-#aloloy-on ). for filing an "nfo"nded complaint against a cler; of co"rt, and fo"nd the complainant attorney in contempt of co"rt and deserving of a ,%,&&&.&& fine. 6"t a stiffer penalty of ,),&&&.&& was imposed on the complainant attorneys in ,rieto v. Corp"z)% and Arnado v. S"arin)7 beca"se their complaints against a A"dge and a co"rt sheriff, respectively, were fo"nd to be baseless.
/0r12ll /0r12ll /0r12ll

Considering the circ"mstances attendant here, the Co"rt deems it s"fficient for now to merely admonish Seares, !r., b"t sternly warns him that he shall be dealt with more severely sho"ld he commit a similar act against a member of the 6ar.
/01I1J1Kbl1L121Mr/N1Jll1J/Ol1Mbr1Jr

D=G GF- G, the Co"rt $>S#>SSGS the administrative complaint against Atty. Saniata Liwliwa V. Gonzales-Alzate for "tter lac; of merit( and A$#-H>S=GS obert Victor G. Seares, !r. for filing the malicio"s complaint, D>3= S3G H DA H>HG that a repetition shall be dealt with more severely as indirect contempt of the Co"rt.
/0r1Jl1J/Ol1Mbr1Jr

O OR'ERE'.