Uy vs. Libiran-Meteoro

A member of the Bar who engages in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct by issuing worthless checks to secure a personal loan, and who has a prior administrative sanction for similar acts, is guilty of gross misconduct and shall be disbarred.

The complainant, a representative of a lending corporation, alleged that the respondent lawyer obtained a personal loan and issued three post-dated checks as payment. Two of these checks, totaling PHP 245,000.00, were dishonored upon presentment due to a closed account and insufficient funds. Despite demands, the respondent failed to pay her obligation. The complainant filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The respondent, despite multiple attempts at service of notices at various addresses, failed to file an answer or appear during the proceedings. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found her guilty and recommended suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors modified to include a fine for procedural non-compliance and deletion of the monetary award. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final action.

• Nature of the Transaction: The complainant, William S. Uy, represented Maliliw Lending Corporation. In the last quarter of 2012, the respondent, Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro, accompanied a client to the corporation's office. She later returned and applied for a personal loan, promising payment via post-dated checks.
• Issuance and Dishonor of Checks: The respondent issued three post-dated checks. Two checks, each for PHP 122,500.00 and dated March 14, 2013, and April 14, 2013, were deposited on their due dates and dishonored for reasons "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and "DAIF" (drawn against insufficient funds).
• Failure to Pay and Prior Misconduct: Despite demands, the respondent ignored calls and failed to pay. The complainant discovered that the respondent had been suspended from law practice for six months in 2014 (Barrientos v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro) for issuing bouncing checks.
• Administrative Proceedings: The IBP-CBD sent notices to three different addresses for the respondent. All attempts at service failed, with one address showing she had moved out in 2006. The respondent did not file an answer or appear at any conference.
• IBP Findings: The IBP-CBD found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 1 of the old Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP-BOG adopted this finding, adding a fine for procedural non-compliance but deleting the monetary award as a civil matter.

• Gross Misconduct: Petitioner argued that the respondent's issuance of worthless checks, coupled with her refusal to pay despite demands, constituted unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, rendering her unfit to practice law.
• Aggravating Circumstance: Petitioner maintained that the respondent's prior suspension for identical misconduct (Barrientos case) served as an aggravating circumstance, justifying the penalty of disbarment under the CPRA.
• Violation of IBP Rules: Petitioner contended that the respondent's failure to update her address with the IBP, causing procedural delays, violated IBP rules and constituted a separate light offense.

• N/A: The respondent did not file any answer, comment, or motion despite multiple service attempts. She did not participate in the proceedings.

• Gross Misconduct: Whether the respondent's issuance of worthless checks for a personal loan constitutes gross misconduct under the CPRA.
• Aggravating Circumstance: Whether the respondent's prior administrative liability for similar acts warrants the imposition of disbarment.
• Procedural Violation: Whether the respondent's failure to update her address with the IBP constitutes a violation of IBP rules punishable under the CPRA.

• Gross Misconduct: The respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. Her acts of issuing worthless checks and ignoring demands to pay are unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful, violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and CPRA Canon II, Sections 1 and 2. Such conduct demonstrates a lack of the integrity and moral character required of members of the Bar.
• Aggravating Circumstance and Disbarment: The penalty of disbarment is warranted. Under CPRA Canon VI, Section 38(b)(1), a previous administrative liability where a penalty was imposed is an aggravating circumstance. The respondent's prior suspension for issuing bouncing checks, followed by the repetition of the same misconduct, shows a propensity for dishonesty and fraud, rendering her unfit to continue as an officer of the court.
• Procedural Violation: The respondent is guilty of a light offense for violating IBP rules on membership by failing to report her change of address. This is penalized under CPRA Canon VI, Section 35(a). However, her failure to file pleadings or appear cannot be deemed willful disobedience since she never received the notices.

• Gross Misconduct under the CPRA — Gross misconduct is a serious offense under Canon VI, Section 33 of the CPRA, defined as improper or wrong conduct that is willful in character, implying wrongful intent. It includes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct that reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice law. The issuance of worthless checks is a classic example, as it violates the law and breaches the trust and confidence essential to the profession.
• Aggravating Circumstance of Prior Administrative Liability — Under CPRA Canon VI, Section 38(b)(1), a finding of previous administrative liability where a penalty was imposed, regardless of nature or gravity, counts as an aggravating circumstance. When one or more aggravating circumstances are present and no mitigating circumstances exist, the Court may impose disbarment depending on the number and gravity of the aggravating factors (Section 39).

• "Allowing her to remain a member of the Bar discredits and puts into disrepute the legal profession. By letting her carry the title of a lawyer—an officer of the court sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws—while being herself a person who breaks the same makes a mockery of this noble calling and erodes the trust and confidence that the public places upon the legal profession." — This passage underscores the Court's rationale for disbarment, emphasizing the incompatibility of legal practice with a pattern of dishonesty.
• "Her name, as it stands, is now but a speck of dirt in the Roll of Attorneys which must be removed at all costs, if only to prevent her disreputable example from smearing the entire profession." — This highlights the Court's duty to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of unworthy members to maintain its integrity.

• Barrientos v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, 480 Phil. 661 (2004) — Cited as the prior administrative case where the respondent was suspended for six months for issuing bouncing checks. This served as the controlling precedent for the aggravating circumstance that led to her disbarment in the present case.
• Ong v. Atty. Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332 (2014) — Followed for the principle that a lawyer's issuance of a bouncing check knowingly violates Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and exhibits indifference to the law, breaching the Lawyer's Oath.
• Saladaga v. Astorga, 748 Phil. 1 (2014) — Relied upon for the definitions of "unlawful," "dishonest," and "deceitful" conduct as applied to lawyers' disciplinary cases.

• Canon II, Sections 1 and 2, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — These provisions mandate lawyers to act with propriety, observe honesty, and refrain from unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court applied them to find the respondent's issuance of worthless checks as gross misconduct.
• Canon VI, Sections 33, 35(a), 37, 38(b)(1), and 39, CPRA — These sections classify offenses and prescribe penalties. Section 33 classifies gross misconduct as a serious offense. Section 35(a) lists violation of IBP rules as a light offense. Section 37 provides the range of penalties for light offenses. Section 38(b)(1) defines an aggravating circumstance. Section 39 allows for disbarment when aggravating circumstances are present.
• Section 19, Revised IBP By-Laws — Requires lawyers to report a change of address to the IBP chapter secretary within 60 days. The respondent's failure to comply was found to be a violation.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ.