SECOND DIVISION
ISIDRA
BARRIENTOS,
Complainant,
A.
C. No. 6408
(CBD 01-840)
August 31, 2004 - versus -
ATTY.
ELERIZZA
A.LIBIRAN-METEORO,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before this Court is a
complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. Elerizza A.
Libiran-Meteoro
for deceit and non-payment of debts.
A letter-complaint dated
May 21, 2001was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
under the names of Isidra Barrientos and Olivia C. Mercado, which was
signed,
however, by Isidra only. It states that: sometime in September of
2000, respondent issued several Equitable PCIBank Checks in favor of
both
Isidra and Olivia, amounting to P67,000.00, and in favor of Olivia,
totaling
P234,000.00, for the payment of a pre-existing debt; the checks bounced
due to insufficient funds thus charges for violation of B.P. 22 were
filed
by Isidra and Olivia with the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan; respondent
sent text messages to complainants asking for the deferment of the
criminal
charges with the promise that she will pay her debt; respondent however
failed to fulfill said promise; on May 16, 2001, respondent, through
her
sister-in-law, tried to give complainants a title for a parcel of land
in exchange for the bounced checks which were in the possession of
complainants;
the title covered an area of 5,000 square meters located at Bantug, La
Torre, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, registered in the name of Victoria
Villamar
which was allegedly paid to respondent by a client; complainants
checked
the property and discovered that the land belonged to a certain Dra.
Helen
Garcia, the sole heir of Victoria Villamar, who merely entrusted said
title
to respondent pursuant to a transaction with the Quedancor;
complainants
tried to get in touch with respondent over the phone but the latter was
always unavailable, thus the present complaint.[1]chanrobles virtual law library
On July 13, 2001, in
compliance with the Order[2]
of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), respondent filed her
Answer
alleging that: she issued several Equitable PCIBank checks amounting to
P234,000.00 in favor of Olivia but not to Isidra; said checks were
issued
in payment of a pre-existing obligation but said amount had already
been
paid and replaced with new checks; Isidra signed a document attesting
to
the fact that the subject of her letter-complaint no longer exists;[3]
she also issued in favor of Olivia several Equitable PCIBank checks
amounting
to P67,000.00 for the payment of a pre-existing obligation; the checks
which were the subject of the complaint filed at the City Prosecutor’s
Office in Cabanatuan City are already in the possession of respondent
and
the criminal case filed by complainants before the Municipal Trial
Court
of Cabanatuan City Branch 3 was already dismissed; the Informations for
Violation of B.P. 22 under I.S. Nos. 01-14090-03[4]
were never filed in court; Olivia already signed an affidavit of
desistance;
respondent did not send text messages to Isidra and Olivia asking for
deferment
of the criminal complaints neither did she present any title in
exchange
for her bounced checks; she never transacted with Isidra since all
dealings
were made with Olivia; and the present complaint was initiated by
Isidra
only because she had a misunderstanding with Olivia and she wants to
extract
money from respondent.[5]chanrobles virtual law library
Attached to said Answer
is an affidavit signed by Olivia C. Mercado which states as follows:
1. That I am one of
the complainants for the Disbarment of Atty. Elerizza Libiran-Meteoro
filed
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines National Office in Pasig
City,
Philippines docketed as CBD case no. 01-840;
2. That the filing of
the said complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines was
brought
about by some misunderstanding and error in the accounting of the
records
of the account of Atty. Elerizza L. Meteoro;
3. That I was the one
who transacted with Atty. Elerizza L. Meteoro and not my co-complainant
Isidra Barrientos;
4. That all the pieces
of jewelry were taken from me by Atty. Elerizza L. Meteoro and the
corresponding
checks
were given to Isidra Barrientos through me;
5. That my name was
indicated as co-complainant in a letter-complaint filed by Ms. Isidra
Barrientos
against Atty. Elerizza L. Meteoro but I am not interested in pursuing
the
complaint against Atty. Elerizza L. Meteoro since the complaint was
brought
about by a case of some mistakes in the records;
6. That I, together
with Isidra Barrientos had already signed an affidavit of desistance
and
submitted the same before the Municipal Trial Court Branch III of
Cabanatuan
City w(h)ere Criminal Case Nos. 77851 to 56 for violation of BP 22 were
filed against Atty. Meteoro;
7. That with respect
to I.S. nos. 03-01-1356 to 1361 the case was not filed in court and I
have
also executed an affidavit of desistance for said complaint;
8. That I am executing
this affidavit to attest to the truth of all the foregoing and to prove
that I have no cause of action against Atty. Elerizza L. Meteoro.[6]
On August 9, 2001, the
IBP-CBD issued a Notice of Hearing requiring both parties to appear
before
it on September 6, 2001. On said date, both parties appeared and
agreed to settle their misunderstanding.[7]chanrobles virtual law library
On November 27, 2001,
the parties agreed that the balance of P134,000.00 which respondent
acknowledged
as her indebtedness to complainant will be settled on a staggered
basis.
Another hearing was then set for February 5, 2002. Respondent
failed
to appear in said hearing despite due notice. It was then reset
to
February 28, 2002 with the order that should respondent fail to appear,
the case shall already be submitted for resolution.[8]
Respondent appeared
in the next two hearings. However, this time, it was complainant
who was unavailable. In the hearing of July 31, 2002, respondent
was absent and was warned again that should she fail to appear in the
next
hearing, the Commissioner shall resolve the case. On said date,
respondent
did not appear despite due notice.[9]
On August 1, 2002, respondent
filed with the Commission a motion for reconsideration of the July 31
order
stating that: she got sick a few days before the scheduled hearing; she
had already paid complainant the amount of P64,000.00; in March of
2002,
respondent’s father was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the
University
of Santo Tomas Hospital thus she was not able to settle her remaining
balance
as planned; and because of said emergency, respondent was not able to
fully
settle the balance of her debt up to this date. Respondent
prayed that she be given another
60
days from
August 1,2002 to finally
settle her debt with complainant.[10]
On April 30, 2003, the
IBP-CBD issued an order granting respondent’s motion and setting aside
the order dated July 31, 2002. It noted that while respondent
claims
that she already paid complainant P64,000.00, the photocopies of the
receipts
she submitted evidencing payment amount only to P45,000.00.[11]
A hearing was then set for May 28, 2003 at which time respondent was
directed
to present proof of her payments to the complainant. The hearing
was however reset several times until August 20, 2003 at which time,
only
complainant appeared. Respondent sent somebody to ask for a
postponement
which the commission denied. The commission gave respondent a
last
opportunity to settle her accounts with complainant. The hearing
was set for October 7, 2003 which the commission said was
“intransferrable.”[12]chanrobles virtual law library
On October 7, 2003,
only complainant appeared. The commission noted that respondent
was
duly notified and even personally received the notice for that day’s
hearing.
The case was thereafter submitted for resolution.[13]
On October 24, 2003,
the Investigating IBP Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan submitted his
report
pertinent portions of which read as follows:
The issue
to
be resolved is whether or not Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro has
committed
a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This
Office
holds that she has. More particularly, the respondent, by
initially
and vehemently denying her indebtedness to herein complainant and then
subsequently admitting liability by proposing a staggered settlement
has
displayed a glaring flaw in her integrity. She has shown herself
to possess poor moral characters. In her motion for
reconsideration,
seeking the reopening of this case, the respondent made a false
assertion
that she had settled up to P64,000.00 of her indebtedness but the
receipts
she submitted total only P50,000.00. What is more disconcerting
is
that while she is aware and duly notified of the settings of this
Office
respondent has seemingly ignored the same deliberately. Finally,
the respondent has not offered any satisfactory explanation for, nor
has
she controverted the complainant’s charge that she (respondent) had
tried
to negotiate a transfer certificate of title (TCT) which had been
entrusted
by a certain Dra. Helen Garcia to her relative to a transaction which
the
former had with the Quedancor where respondent was formerly
employed.
Based on all the foregoing findings and the deliberate failure of the
respondent
to come forward and settle her accountabilities, inspite of several
warnings
given her by the undersigned, and her failure to attend the scheduled
hearings
despite due notice, this Office is convinced that Atty. Elerizza
Libiran-Meteoro
has committed a glaring violation not only of her oath as a lawyer but
also the dictates of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 which mandates that a worthy
member
of the Bar must constantly be of good moral character and unsullied
honesty.[14]chanrobles virtual law library
He then recommended
that
Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro be suspended from the practice of law
for two years and meted a fine of twenty thousand pesos.[15]
On October 29, 2003,
respondent filed another motion for reconsideration stating that: she
was
not able to receive the notice for the October 7 hearing because she
was
in Bicol attending to pressing personal problems; she only arrived from
the province on October 25, 2003 and it was only then that she got hold
of the Order dated October 7; from the very beginning, respondent never
intended to ignore the Commission’s hearings; as much as she wanted to
pay complainant in full, the financial crisis which hit her family
since
2001 has gravely affected her ability to pay; until that day, the
expenses
incurred by respondent due to the hospitalization of her father has not
been paid in full by her family; the family home of respondent in
Cabanatuan
has already been foreclosed by the bank; respondent’s husband has been
confined recently due to thyroid problems and respondent herself
had sought medical help on several occasions due to her inability to
conceive
despite being married for more than five years; if not for said
reasons,
respondent could have already paid the complainant despite respondent’s
knowledge that the amount complainant wanted to collect from her is
merely
the interest of her debt since she already returned most of the pieces
of jewelry she purchased and she already paid for those that she was
not
able to return. Respondent prays that the resolution of the case
be deferred and that she be given another 90 days from said date or
until
January 19, 2003 to settle whatever balance remains after proper
accounting
and presentation of receipts.[16]
On February 27, 2004,
the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a Resolution as follows:
RESOLUTION
NO. XVI-2003-67
CBD Case No. 01-840
Isidra Barrientos vs.
Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro
RESOLVED to ADOPT
and
APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein
made
part of this Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation
fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules,
with modification, and considering respondent’s glaring violation not
only
of her oath as a lawyer but of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility, Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro is hereby SUSPENDED
from
the practice of law for six (6) months and Restitution of P84,000.00 to
complainant.[17]
We agree with the
findings
and recommendation of the IBP except as to the alleged matter of
respondent
offering a transfer certificate of title to complainants in exchange
for
the bounced checks that were in their possession.chanrobles virtual law library
We have held that deliberate
failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks
constitute
gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension
from the practice of law.[18]
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards
of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal
proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity
and
fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial
system is ensured.[19]
They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to
the
bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of
financial
obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that
reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.[20]
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states that:
CANON 1-- A lawyer shall
uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and for legal processes.cralaw:red
Rule 1.01 -- A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.cralaw:red
In this case, respondent
in her answer initially tried to deny having any obligation towards
Isidra
Barrientos. Upon appearing before the IBP-CBD, however,
respondent
eventually acknowledged her indebtedness to Isidra in the amount of
P134,000.00,
promising only to pay in a staggered basis. Her attempt to evade
her financial obligation runs counter to the precepts of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility, above quoted, and violates the lawyer’s oath which
imposes
upon every member of the bar the duty to delay no man for money or
malice.[21]
After respondent acknowledged
her debt to complainant, she committed herself to the payment
thereof.
Yet she failed many times to fulfill said promise. She did not
appear
in most of the hearings and merely submitted a motion for
reconsideration
on August 1, 2002 after the IBP-CBD Commissioner had already submitted
the case for resolution. She claimed that she got sick days
before
the hearing and asked for sixty days to finally settle her
account.
Again, she failed to fulfill her promise and did not appear before the
Commission in the succeeding hearings despite due notice. After
the
case was submitted anew for resolution on October 6, 2003, respondent
filed
another motion for reconsideration, this time saying that she was in
the
province attending to personal matters. Again she asked for
another
ninety days to settle her entire debt. This repeated failure on
her
part to fulfill her promise puts in question her integrity and moral
character.
Her failure to attend most of the hearings called by the commission and
her belated pleas for reconsideration also manifest her propensity to
delay
the resolution of the case and to make full use of the mechanisms of
administrative
proceedings to her benefit.chanrobles virtual law library
She also could not deny
that she issued several checks without sufficient funds, which prompted
Isidra and Olivia to file complaints before the prosecutor’s office in
Cabanatuan City. Her only excuse is that she was able to replace
said checks and make arrangements for the payment of her debt, which
led
to the dismissal of the criminal complaints against her.cralaw:red
We have held that the
issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn
against
a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and
confidence
reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good
moral
character as to render her unworthy of public confidence.[22]
The issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless
attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious effects of such
act
to the public interest and public order.[23]
It also manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath
she
has taken when she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably
tarnishing
the image of the profession she should hold in high esteem.[24]
Mere issuance of worthless
checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether or not the same were issued
in
his professional capacity to a client, calls for appropriate
disciplinary
measures. As we explained in Co vs. Bernardino:[25]
The general rule is
that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not
ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his
non-professional or private capacity. Where, however, the
misconduct
outside of the lawyer’s professional dealings is so gross a character
as
to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege
which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be
justified
in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney.chanrobles virtual law library
The evidence on record
clearly shows respondent’s propensity to issue bad checks. This
gross
misconduct on his part, though not related to his professional duties
as
a member of the bar, puts his moral character in serious doubt.[26]
(Citations omitted.)
She also
claims that her father was hospitalized in March 2002
and that she and her husband also had to seek medical help which
greatly
affected her ability to pay. She however did not present any
proof
to substantiate such claims. She also did not appear personally
before
the complainant and the commission, in spite of the many opportunities
given her, to make arrangements for the payment of her debt considering
the circumstances that befell her family. Instead, she waited
until
the case was submitted for resolution to allege such facts, without
presenting
any proof therefor.cralaw:red
We cannot uphold the
IBP in finding that since respondent has not offered any explanation
for,
nor has she controverted the complainants’ charge that she tried to
negotiate
with them a transfer certificate of title that had been entrusted to
her
by a client, she should be held liable therefor. Basic is the
principle
that if the complainant, upon whom rests the burden of proving her
cause
of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which
she bases her claim, the respondent is under no obligation to prove her
exception or defense.[27]
Simply put, the burden is not on the respondent to prove her innocence
but on the complainants to prove her guilt. In this case,
complainants
submitted a photocopy of a TCT in the name of Victoria Villamar
together
with their letter-complaint, which according to complainants was the
title
respondent tried, through her sister-in-law, to negotiate with them in
exchange for the bounced checks in their possession.[28]
No other evidence or sworn statement was submitted in support of such
allegation.
Respondent in her answer, meanwhile, denied having any knowledge
regarding
such matter and no further discussion was made on the matter, not even
in the hearings before the commission.[29]
For this reason, we hold that respondent should not be held liable for
the alleged negotiation of a TCT to complainants for lack of sufficient
evidence, but only for the non-payment of debts and the issuance of
worthless
checks which were sufficiently proved and which respondent herself
admitted.chanrobles virtual law library
We reiterate that membership
in the legal profession is a privilege and demands a high degree of
good
moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but
also
as a continuing requirement for the practice of law.[30]
Accordingly, administrative
sanction is warranted by respondent’s misconduct. The IBP Board
of
Governors recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law for six months. In Lao vs. Medel,[31]
which also involved non-payment of debt and issuance of worthless
checks,
the Court held that suspension from the practice of law for one year
was
appropriate. Unlike in the Lao case however, respondent is this
case
paid a portion of her debt, as evidenced by receipts amounting to
P50,000.00.
Thus we deem that six months suspension from the practice of law and
the
restitution of P84,000.00 to complainant Isidra Barrientos would be
sufficient
in this case.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, Atty. Elerizza
A. Libiran-Meteoro is found guilty of gross misconduct and is hereby
SUSPENDED
for six months from the practice of law, effective upon her receipt of
this Decision, and is ordered to pay complainant Isidra Barrientos the
amount of P84,000.00, as balance of her debt to the latter, plus 6%
interest
from date of finality of herein decision.cralaw:red
Let copies of this Resolution
be entered in the record of respondent and served on the IBP as well as
the court administrator who shall circulate herein Resolution to all
courts
for their information and guidance.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Callejo, Sr., Tinga
and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
Id., p. 27.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Such document, attached to the Answer as Annex “1” is a handwritten
note
stating that Isidra Barrientos received Planters Bank checks (nos.
1043555
dated August 3, 2001; 1043557 dated September 3, 2001; and 1043558
dated
October 3, 2001) totaling P154,430.00 as replacement for Equitable
PCIBank
checks (nos. 0000531 dated January 30, 2001; 0000535 dated February 18,
2001; 0000536 dated February 28, 2001; 0000517 dated December 28, 2000;
and 0000540 dated January 18, 2000), rollo, p. 33. Equitable
PCIBank
check nos. 0000536 and 0000517 were the subjects of two Informations
(Annexes
“A” and “D”) out of the eight Informations for violation of B.P. 22
issued
by the city prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, attached by Isidra in her
letter-complaint,
rollo, pp. 5-6, 11-12.
[4]
Involving Equitable PCIBank check nos. 0000536, 0000534, 0000535, and
0000517,
Annexes “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” of the letter-complaint, rollo, pp. 5-12.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Rollo, pp. 31-32.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Rollo, p. 35.
[7]
Id., pp. 36-38.
[8]
Id., pp. 42-44.
[9]
Id., pp. 47, 51, 53, 56.
[10]
Id., pp. 56-57.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Should be P50,000.00, rollo, p. 59.
[12]
Id., pp. 62-64, 66.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Id., p. 69.
[14]
Id., pp. 78-79.
[15]
Id., p. 79.
[16]
Rollo, pp. 70-71.
[17]
Id., p. 75.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Lao vs. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 227, 231.
[19]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Id., p. 232.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
See Vitriolo vs. Dasig, A.C. No. 4334, July 7, 2004.
[22]
Cuizon vs. Macalino, A.C. No. 4334, July 7, 2004.
[23]
Lao vs. Medel, see note 18, p. 232.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
Sanchez vs. Somoso, A.C. No. 6061, October 3, 2003.
[25]
A.C. No. 3919, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 102.
[26]
Id., p. 106.chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
Sps. Boyboy vs. Yabut, A.C. No. 5225, April 29, 2003.
[28]
Rollo, pp. 3, 26.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
Rollo, p. 31.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
Lao vs. Medel, see note 18, p. 234.
[31]
Id., p. 235. |