OCA CIRCULAR NO. 11-2006, January 20, 2006

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the Resolution of the Second Division dated August 31, 2004 in Administrative Case  No. 6408 (CBD 01-840), entitled “Isidra Barrientos vs. Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran- Meleoro”. to wit:

“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, 2001 was 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 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 gel in touch with
respondent over the phone but the latter was always unavailable. thus
the present complaint.^[1]

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 o~ 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]

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
   againsi 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]

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
clue 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 lather 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 .Inly 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]

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 Renalo 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]

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 lor 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 hank; 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 live
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 clays 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]

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.

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 slates that:

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

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 lo 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 1BP-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.

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.

We have held that the issuance of checks which
were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account
indicates a lawyer’s unIllness for the trust and confidence reposed on
her. ll shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as lo
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]
lt also manifests a lawyer’s low regard lo 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.

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 there lor.

We cannot uphold the IBP in finding that since
respondent has not offered any explanation for, nor has she controverted
the complainants 1 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.

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.

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.

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.

SO ORDERED”

Copy of the Resolution was received by respondent on
October 5, 2004 as manifested in her Motion for Reconsideration dated 19
October 2004, which was DENTED WITH FINALITY by the Court in a
resolution dated 2 March 2005.

__20__ January 2006.

^[2] /d., p. 27.

^[3] Such
document, attached to the Answer as Annex “I” is a handwritten note
stating that Isidra Banientos received Planters Bank checks (nos.
1043555 dated August 3, 2001; 1043557 dated September 3, 2001; and
1043558 dated October 3, 2001) totaling £ 154,430.00 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 “lD”) out of the eight Informations
for violation of B.P. 22 issued by the city prosecutor ofCabanaluan
City, attached by Isidra in her letter-complaint, rollo, pp. 5-6, I
1-12.

^[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.

^[5] Rollo, pp. 3 I-.32.

^[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.

^[11] Should be P50.000.00, rollo, p. 59.

^[12] Id., pp. 62-64, 66.

^[13] Id., p. 69.

^[14] Id. , pp. 78-79.

^[15] Id. , p. 79.

^[16] Rollo, pp. 70-71.

^[17] Id.,p. 75.

^[18] Lao vs. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, July I, 2003, 405 SCRA 227, 231.

^[19] Ibid.

^[20] Id., p. 232.

^[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 1 8, p. 232.

^[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.

^[27] Sps. Boyboy vs. Yabut, A.C. No. 5225, April 29, 2003 .

^[28] Rollo, pp. 3, 26.

^[29] Rollo, p. 31.

^[30] Lao vs. Medel, see note I 8, p. 234.

^[31] Id., p. 235.