A.C. No. 6408 ; August 31, 2004
ISIDRA BARRIENTOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. ELERIZZA A. LIBIRAN-METEORO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Isidra Barrientos, along with Olivia Mercado, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro for deceit and non-payment of debts. The complaint alleged that in September 2000, respondent issued several Equitable PCIBank checks totaling P301,000.00 to the complainants to settle a pre-existing obligation. The checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to the filing of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) cases. Respondent allegedly promised to pay but failed, and later attempted to offer a land title as settlement, which title was discovered to belong to another person and merely entrusted to her.
In her Answer, respondent admitted issuing checks to Olivia Mercado but denied transacting with Isidra Barrientos. She claimed the original debt had been replaced with new checks, the B.P. 22 cases were dismissed, and an affidavit of desistance was executed by Olivia Mercado. She asserted the complaint arose from a misunderstanding and Isidra’s desire to extract money. During IBP hearings, the parties agreed to settle, with respondent acknowledging a balance of P134,000.00 to be paid in installments. However, respondent repeatedly failed to appear at subsequent hearings and only partially paid the debt, presenting receipts for P50,000.00 but leaving a substantial balance unpaid.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Elerizza A. Libiran-Meteoro should be held administratively liable for her conduct arising from the non-payment of a debt and issuance of worthless checks.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct. While a lawyer’s non-payment of a personal debt is generally not a ground for disbarment, it becomes a basis for disciplinary action when the conduct involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or a violation of the lawyer’s oath. Here, respondent’s issuance of worthless checks, which is a criminal act under B.P. 22, constitutes gross misconduct. Such act reflects adversely on her honesty and fitness to practice law. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s professional oath mandates obedience to the laws, and the deliberate issuance of checks without sufficient funds is a clear breach of this duty.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. Her partial payment and the dismissal of the criminal cases do not extinguish her administrative liability, which proceeds independently from any criminal action. Her failure to fully honor her settlement agreement with the complainant and her repeated non-appearance at IBP hearings demonstrated a lack of respect for the disciplinary proceedings and a failure to fulfill her commitments. This pattern of behavior confirmed her lack of integrity. Considering the partial payment made, the Court deemed a six-month suspension from the practice of law and an order to pay the remaining balance of P84,000.00 to complainant, with 6% interest, as the appropriate penalty. This serves to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and deter similar misconduct.