Valerio vs. Atty. Meteoro-Libiran

A lawyer who has been previously disbarred may no longer be disbarred a second time, but the Court may still impose administrative sanctions, including a fine, for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability committed prior to the disbarment. The violation must be recorded in the disbarred lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, and such record shall be considered in the event the lawyer applies for judicial clemency.

The complainant, Larcy Valerio, extended a loan to respondent, who identified herself as "Atty. Eleriza Meteoro-Libiran," secured by post-dated checks. Respondent had previously been the subject of administrative cases under the name "Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro," including Barrientos vs. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro (A.C. No. 6408), where she was suspended for six months for issuing worthless checks, and Uy vs. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, where she was disbarred for the same fraudulent scheme. The Office of the Bar Confidant reported that no "Atty. Eleriza Meteoro-Libiran" was listed in the Roll of Attorneys, and only "Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro" was on record.

Larcy Valerio filed an administrative complaint against one "Atty. Eleriza Meteoro-Libiran" because the post-dated checks that the latter issued as security for her loan were all dishonored when Valerio presented them for payment. Respondent ignored Valerio's formal demand for payment of the loan, as well as the subsequent criminal action that Valerio instituted against her for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. This resulted in the Regional Trial Court issuing a warrant for her arrest.

Respondent exhibited the same disregard for the concurrent disbarment proceedings initiated by Valerio. All attempts to notify respondent of the disbarment complaint were returned unserved, which eventually led to her forfeiture of the opportunity to submit her position paper. The Commission on Bar Discipline's investigating commissioner recommended her disbarment, considering the aggravating circumstances in the case.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines' Board of Governors modified the investigating commissioner's recommendation, noting that respondent had already been previously disbarred, and recommended instead a fine of PHP 101,000.00 with a stern warning. The Board of Governors and the investigating commissioner concluded that respondent employed the same scheme of using a false name to mislead and deceive others, ignore notices from courts and administrative bodies, and evade responsibility for her actions.

The Court noted that respondent's behavior in Uy vs. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro was identical to the behavior exhibited in the present case: issuing worthless checks, blatantly ignoring demands to pay, and failing to be contacted. In Uy, the Court found that respondent's issuance of unfunded checks was willful and intentional, reflecting her modus of issuing worthless checks to obtain loans from unknowing victims. The Court also referenced Barrientos, where respondent was previously found guilty of gross misconduct for issuing two worthless Equitable PCI Bank checks in the amounts of PHP 67,000.00 and PHP 234,000.00, and was suspended for six months.

N/A — The decision does not recount the complainant's specific arguments beyond the filing of the administrative complaint and the subsequent amendments to reflect respondent's correct name.

N/A — The decision does not recount any arguments from respondent, as she remained unreachable by notice throughout the proceedings and failed to submit a position paper.

• Identity of Respondent: Whether respondent Atty. Elerizza Meteoro-Libiran is the same person as "Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro," who was administratively sanctioned in the prior cases of Barrientos vs. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro and Uy vs. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro.
• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent Atty. Meteoro-Libiran may be administratively sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

• Identity of Respondent: Yes. "Atty. Elerizza Meteoro-Libiran" and "Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro" are the same person, as the minor difference in names cannot overcome the exactness by which she reproduced the same scheme employed in the prior cases.
• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent violated Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for issuing bouncing checks to secure her unpaid loan obligation. However, in view of her prior disbarment in Uy, disbarment may no longer be imposed; instead, a fine of PHP 101,000.00 was imposed, and the violation was ordered recorded in her personal file pursuant to Canon VI, Section 42.

• Identity of Respondent: The Court was convinced that the respondent in this case and the respondent in Uy and Barrientos are the same person. The Office of the Bar Confidant reported that "Atty. Eleriza Meteoro-Libiran" was not listed in the Roll of Attorneys, and only "Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro" was on record. The behavior exhibited by respondent in the present case — issuing worthless checks, ignoring demands for payment, and evading service of notices — is identical to the behavior exhibited in Uy. The Court quoted Uy's finding that respondent's "present and past infractions reflected her modus of issuing worthless checks to obtain loans from unknowing victims." The investigating commissioner and the Board of Governors concluded that respondent employed the same scheme of using a false name to mislead and deceive others, ignore notices, and evade responsibility. The Court held that ruling otherwise "would only accommodate respondent's repeated deceptions and disregard of her professional responsibilities."

• Administrative Liability: Respondent's issuance of bouncing checks to secure her unpaid loan obligation violates Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The Court quoted extensively from Uy, which found that the act of issuing worthless checks and blatantly ignoring demands to pay is "unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful," and violates Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court also cited Ong vs. Atty. Delos Santos for the proposition that a lawyer is presumed to know the objectives and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and that issuing unfunded checks exhibits indifference to the pernicious effect of the illegal act on public interest. The Court further cited Carrillo vs. Atty. Soriano, which defined "serious or gross misconduct" as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment." Under Canon VI, Section 33 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, gross misconduct is classified as a serious offense. Under Section 38(b)(l), a finding of previous administrative liability where a penalty is imposed counts as an aggravating circumstance. However, because respondent was already disbarred in Uy, the Court could no longer disbar her a second time. Citing Felix vs. Gadon, the Court held that repeated violations may be noted on the disbarred lawyer's personal file and may be cause for the imposition of a fine or other administrative sanctions, pursuant to Canon VI, Section 42. The Court found no reason to modify the fine of PHP 101,000.00, as Canon VI, Section 37(a)(4) allows the imposition of a "fine exceeding [PHP] 100,000.00" for serious offenses.

• Penalty When the Respondent Has Been Previously Disbarred — Under Canon VI, Section 42 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, when a respondent has been previously disbarred and is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine or order the disbarred lawyer to return money or property to the client. If the new charge deserves disbarment or suspension, such penalty shall not be imposed but shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant. In the event the disbarred lawyer applies for judicial clemency, the recorded penalty shall be considered in the resolution of the same. The Court applied this doctrine by ordering the recording of respondent's violation in her personal file and imposing a fine of PHP 101,000.00.

• Gross Misconduct — Defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment." The Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for issuing worthless checks and ignoring demands to pay, which conduct was willful and intentional, reflecting her modus of issuing worthless checks to obtain loans from unknowing victims.

• Substantial Evidence in Disbarment Proceedings — The quantum of evidence required in disbarment proceedings is substantial evidence, or "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." The Court applied this standard in finding that respondent's issuance of the subject checks was duly evidenced by copies of the dishonored checks.

• "This Court may no longer disbar a lawyer who has been previously disbarred, but it may still impose administrative sanctions on them for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability committed prior to their disbarment." — This opening statement articulates the core ruling of the case: the Court retains jurisdiction to sanction a previously disbarred lawyer for offenses committed while still a member of the Bar.

• "The minor difference in the names used by respondent in the present case and in the cases of Uy and Barrientos cannot overcome the exactness by which she reproduced the same scheme employed in the aforementioned cases. 'Atty. Elerizza Meteoro-Libiran' and 'Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro' are the same person. Ruling otherwise would only accommodate respondent's repeated deceptions and disregard of her professional responsibilities." — This passage resolves the identity issue, establishing that the respondent's use of a slightly different name was part of her scheme to deceive and evade responsibility.

• "But while the Court can no longer impose the penalty upon the disbarred lawyer, it can still give the corresponding penalty only for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which should be taken into consideration in the event that the disbarred lawyer subsequently files a petition to lift his disbarment." — Quoted from Valmonte vs. Atty. Quesada via Felix vs. Gadon, this passage explains the purpose of recording the penalty in the disbarred lawyer's personal file.

• Uy vs. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, 954 Phil. 387 (2024) — Controlling precedent that disbarred respondent for the same scheme of issuing worthless checks. The Court relied on its findings in Uy to establish respondent's identity and her pattern of misconduct.

• Barrientos vs. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, 480 Phil. 661 (2004) — Prior case where respondent was suspended for six months for issuing worthless checks. The Court referenced this case to establish respondent's prior administrative liability, which counts as an aggravating circumstance.

• Felix vs. Gadon, 951 Phil. 620 (2024) — Controlling precedent on the proper penalty when a respondent has been previously disbarred. The Court applied its holding that repeated violations may be noted on the disbarred lawyer's personal file and may be cause for the imposition of a fine.

• Ong vs. Atty. Delos Santos — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer is presumed to know the objectives and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and that issuing unfunded checks knowingly violates the law and exhibits indifference to its pernicious effects.

• Carrillo vs. Atty. Soriano — Cited for the definition of "serious or gross misconduct" as improper or wrong conduct that is willful in character and implies wrongful intent.

• Valmonte vs. Atty. Quesada — Cited for the principle that while the Court can no longer impose the penalty of disbarment upon a disbarred lawyer, it can still give the corresponding penalty for the purpose of recording it in the personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant.

• Canon II, Sections 1 and 2, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — The Court found respondent guilty of violating these provisions for issuing bouncing checks to secure her unpaid loan obligation, which conduct was unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful.

• Canon VI, Section 33, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Classifies gross misconduct as a serious offense for which the following penalties may be imposed: (1) disbarment; (2) suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six months; (3) revocation of notarial commission and disqualification as notary public for not less than two years; or (4) a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00.

• Canon VI, Section 37(a)(4), Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Allows the imposition of a "fine exceeding [PHP] 100,000.00" for serious offenses. The Court relied on this provision to sustain the fine of PHP 101,000.00.

• Canon VI, Section 38(b)(l), Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Provides that a finding of previous administrative liability where a penalty is imposed, regardless of nature or gravity, counts as an aggravating circumstance.

• Canon VI, Section 39, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Provides that if one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Court, in its discretion, may impose the penalty of disbarment depending on the number and gravity of aggravating circumstances.

• Canon VI, Section 42, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Provides the penalty when the respondent has been previously disbarred: the Court may impose a fine or order the return of money or property, and the penalty shall be recorded in the personal file of the disbarred lawyer in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

• Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — The law penalizing the making or drawing and issuance of worthless checks. Respondent's issuance of worthless checks violated this law, which was the basis for the criminal action instituted by complainant.

Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Gaerlan, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Zalameda, Rosario, Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., were on official business. Villanueva, J., was on official leave.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the case text.