SC disbars previously suspended lawyer

SC disbars previously suspended lawyer

/ 05:46 AM May 25, 2024

The Supreme Court has disbarred a previously suspended lawyer and slapped her with a P35,000 fine for issuing bouncing checks and failing to pay her debt.

In a decision promulgated on Tuesday, the high court en banc found lawyer Elerizza Libiran-Meteoro guilty of gross misconduct and disbarred her from practicing law.

According to the high tribunal, Meteoro’s issuance of worthless checks violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, or the Bouncing Checks Law, which put “valueless commercial papers in circulation” that effectively “injured the banking system and hurt society and the public interest.”


“As a member of the Bar, Atty. Libiran-Meteoro was expected not only to know the harmful effect of issuing worthless checks and the fact that this is prohibited, but to be the first to faithfully follow the law,” the Supreme Court said in a statement on Friday.


The high court further lamented that the lawyer’s acts were not only unlawful, but also dishonest and deceitful.

“Her continued refusal to pay, much less acknowledge, her obligation, further shows that her acts were willful and intentional,” it said.

Based on court records, Meteoro in 2013 issued postdated checks in favor of Maliliw Lending Corp. for a personal loan.

However, when the checks were deposited, they were returned for being written on a closed account or lacking sufficient funds.

William Uy, a representative of Maliliw Lending, found that the lawyer was previously suspended from the practice of law for six months, for gross misconduct.

Uy tried to reach out to Meteoro, who just ignored his calls, resulting in damages on the former amounting to P245,000.


The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline investigated the complaint filed by Uy and recommended the lawyer’s suspension for one year and payment of P245,000 to the complainant.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but removed the ordered payment to Uy, as it ruled that it should be the subject of a separate civil action.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Lawyer, Supreme Court

© Copyright 1997-2024 | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.