View full case

GISELA HUYSSEN v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

FACTS:

Gisela Huyssen and her three American citizen sons applied for Philippine visas in 1995 under Section 13[g] of the Immigration Law. Atty. Fred Gutierrez, who was connected with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) at that time, informed the complainant that they needed to deposit a certain amount of money for a year to ensure favorable action on their visa applications. Complainant deposited a total of US$20,000 with the respondent on six separate occasions. They did not receive official receipts despite their demands. After a year, complainant demanded the return of the deposited amount but respondent failed to return it. Respondent promised to return the amount but failed to do so. Respondent then sent complainant postdated checks, which were dishonored by the bank. Complainant filed a disbarment complaint against respondent in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Upon investigation, it was found out that the complainant used money from World Mission for Jesus as her show money for her visa application, which is a violation of the Immigration Law. The same amount of money was also used by the complainant's son for his separate permanent visa application. After securing their visas, the complainant, and her family became close to the respondent and his family. Complainant demanded the return of their money after three years. The investigating commissioner recommended the disbarment of the respondent, stating that he received the amount in question from the complainant and failed to provide sufficient evidence that he delivered the money to Atty. Mendoza. The commissioner also noted that official receipts were never issued for the money, and the respondent issued personal checks to the complainant for the return of the money.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent misappropriated the US$20,000 received from the complainant

  2. Whether the respondent violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

  3. Whether the respondent lawyer's act of misappropriating the complainant's money and issuing worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct.

  4. Whether the respondent lawyer's act of soliciting money from the complainant in consideration of the latter's pending application for visas violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

  1. The respondent admitted to receiving the US$20,000 from the complainant but denied misappropriating it. However, the defense of delivering the money to another person was unsubstantiated and the respondent failed to provide evidence to support this claim. Moreover, the respondent's actions, such as issuing personal checks to return the money, indicated that he had personally received and used the funds. The defense of denial was not convincing and deemed weak. Thus, the respondent was found to have misappropriated the money.

  2. The respondent, being a lawyer in government service, was found to have violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits the use of one's public position to promote or advance private interests. The respondent took advantage of his position to receive and use the money for his personal use, thereby violating this rule.

  3. Yes, the respondent lawyer's act of misappropriating the complainant's money and issuing worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct. The issuance of worthless checks is considered gross misconduct as it not only affects the private interests of the parties involved but also the interests of the community. It can potentially harm the banking system, trade, commerce, and the welfare of society. The act of knowingly issuing a check without sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank is considered a manifestation of moral turpitude.

  4. Yes, the respondent lawyer's act of soliciting money from the complainant in consideration of the latter's pending application for visas violates the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 1.01 of the Code prohibits lawyers from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts. Rule 6.02 bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests, including soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of their office or that may be affected by the functions of their office. The conduct of the respondent lawyer in soliciting money from the complainant clearly violates these rules.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers in government service have more restrictions and are held to higher standards of moral integrity.

  • When the integrity of a lawyer is challenged, it is not enough to deny the charges; the lawyer must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him/her.

  • Denial is inherently a weak defense and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability.

  • The issuance of postdated checks and correspondence admitting a moral obligation can be considered as admissions of guilt.

  • Issuing worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct and is a manifestation of moral turpitude.

  • Lawyers in government service are expected to uphold the dignity of the legal profession, observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing, and refrain from engaging in any act that might lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government.

  • Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts.

  • Lawyers in government service are prohibited from promoting their private interests, including soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of their office or that may be affected by the functions of their office.

  • The practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically, and morally. Lawyers must conduct themselves with honesty, integrity, and beyond reproach.

  • Lawyers must faithfully perform their duties to society, the bar, the courts, and their clients.

  • A violation of the high standards of the legal profession subjects a lawyer to administrative sanctions, including suspension and disbarment.

  • Possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice.

  • The primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is to not only punish and discipline the erring lawyers but also to safeguard the administration of justice.

  • Government lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to the public service and should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.

  • Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for various acts of misconduct.