The Supreme Court has found Atty. Elerizza Meteoro-Libiran, also known as "Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro," guilty of violating Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) for issuing dishonored checks to secure a personal loan. Because she had already been disbarred in a prior case, the Court could no longer impose disbarment a second time. Instead, it fined her PHP 101,000.00 and ordered the violation recorded in her personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant.
The Case
Complainant Larcy Valerio filed an administrative complaint against the respondent after the post-dated checks the latter issued as security for her loan were all dishonored when Valerio presented them for payment. Valerio's formal demand for payment was ignored, as was the criminal action she subsequently filed for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. That criminal case resulted in the Regional Trial Court issuing a warrant for the respondent's arrest. The respondent likewise ignored the disbarment proceedings: all attempts to notify her were returned unserved, leading to the forfeiture of her opportunity to submit a position paper.
When the complaint was first filed on August 9, 2004, proceedings stalled because the respondent, named as "Atty. Eleriza Meteoro-Libiran," could not be served with notice. The Office of the Bar Confidant later reported that no such name appeared in the Roll of Attorneys, but that "Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro" was on record as having previously received a six-month suspension for issuing bouncing checks in Barrientos v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro. The Court directed the complainant to amend her complaint to reflect the respondent's correct and complete name, and the case proceeded.
The Issue
The Court resolved two issues: first, 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 v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro and Uy v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro; and second, whether she may be administratively sanctioned for violating the CPRA.
The Ruling
The Court ruled affirmatively on both issues. It found that "Atty. Elerizza Meteoro-Libiran" and "Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro" are the same person, noting that her behavior in the present case was identical to that described in Uy v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, where she was disbarred for the same scheme of issuing worthless checks.
The Court's dispositive order states: "ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Elerizza Meteoro-Libiran a.k.a. 'Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro' GUILTY of violating Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and imposes upon her the penalty of DISBARMENT from the practice of law." However, the Court immediately qualified this: "in view of her earlier disbarment in Uy v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, disbarment may no longer be imposed, but must nonetheless be recorded in respondent's personal file pursuant to Canon VI, Section 42 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability." The Court further ordered that respondent is "FINED in the amount of PHP 101,000.00, consistent with Canon VI, Section 37(a)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability." The Decision is immediately executory.
By the Numbers
- PHP 101,000.00 — fine imposed on the respondent
- August 9, 2004 — date the original administrative complaint was filed
- December 21, 2005 — date the Office of the Bar Confidant issued its Report and Recommendation on the name discrepancy
- October 18, 2023 — date of the IBP Investigating Commissioner's Report and Recommendation
- June 27, 2024 — date of IBP Board of Governors Resolution No. XXVI-CRM-2024-06-26
- October 10, 2024 — date the IBP transmitted the case documents to the Supreme Court
- A.C. No. 6837 — docket number of the present case (formerly CBD Case No. 04-1287)
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that the respondent's pattern of issuing dishonored checks, ignoring demands for payment, and evading legal proceedings was consistent across multiple cases. It cited Canon VI, Section 42 of the CPRA, which provides that 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 return of money or property, and that any penalty that would otherwise call for disbarment or suspension shall instead be recorded in the disbarred lawyer's personal file. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Felix v. Gadon for the principle that the Court does not lose its exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer while still a member of the legal profession, and that a fine may be imposed to assert the Court's authority to discipline such acts. The Court found no reason to modify the fine recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, as Canon VI, Section 37(a)(4) of the CPRA allows a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00 for serious offenses. The recorded violation may be considered should the respondent apply for judicial clemency in the future.
Source: Valerio v. Atty. Meteoro-Libiran, A.C. No. 6837 (formerly CBD Case No. 04-1287). The decision was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.