Yuhico V Atty. Gutierrez

A.C. No.
8391 November 23, 2010

[Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1631]
MANUEL C. YUHICO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ, Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
FACTS:
Complainant Yuhico alleged that he met respondent Gutierrez at the Office of the
Prosecutor in Pasig. Yuhico was there to testify at the preliminary investigation for Estafa case
against Jose Chicharro, who was being represented by Gutierrez. They eventually became
acquainted with each other.
Yuhico averred that Gutierrez phoned him and asked for a cash loan of 30,000.
Gutierrez claimed that he needed money to pay for the medical expenses of his mother who
was seriously ill. Yuhico handed the money. Gutierrez promised to pay the loan, since he was
expecting to collect his attorney’s fees from a Japanese client.
Gutierrez asked Yuhico for another loan amounting to 60,000 allegedly to pay for
medical expenses of his wise. Yuhico issued to Atty. Gutierrez a PCI Bank. Atty. Gutierrez
promised to pay the two loans within a short time. Yuhico asked Gutierrez to pay his loans.
However, he failed to pay.
Yuhico alleged that Gutierrex attempted to borrow money again. He said Gutierrez claim
that his daughter needed 70,000 for her licensure examination for medical Board. Gutierrez
assured him that he will pay all his debts on or before August 10, 2005.
However, this time, Yuhico refused to lend Gutierrez any amount of money. Instead, he
demanded from Gutierrez the payment of his debts. Gutierrez then sent another text message
and requested him to give him another week to pay his debts. However, he failed to make the
payment.
Yuhico repeatedly requested the payment of loans from Gutierrez. On the other hand,
for numerous times Gutierrez promised to pay, but always failed to do so. At one point,
Gutierrez even asked Yuhico's account number and promised to deposit his payment there, but
he never deposited the payment.
Thus, Yuhico filed the complaint against Gutierrez before the IBP-CBD.
Gutierrez claimed that Yuhico was the one who offered to lend him money in gratitude
for the assistance he extended to the latter when he was under threat by his client. He,
however, admitted that he accepted the loan due to compelling circumstances. He added that
he has no intention pf evading his obligation to pay his debts, but he is currently in financial
distress. He claimed he will pay his debts when his financial condition improves.
In his Position Paper, Yuhico manifested that the Supreme Court, in Huyssen v. Atty.
Gutierrez, had already disbarred Gutierrez from the practice of law for gross misconduct, in view
of his failure to pay his debts and his issuance of worthless checks.
IBP-CBD found Gutierrez guilty of non-payment of just debts and ordered him to return
the 90,000, with interest until full payment.
The IBP-CBD recommended to the Court that, instead of rendering the instant case
moot, Gutierrez should be disbarred anew effective upon the expiration of the sanction pursuant
to the Supreme Court Decision. The IBP-CBD explained that while we do not have
jurisprudence on the issue of double or multiple disbarment, the American jurisprudence,
however, recognizes double or multiple disbarments as well as the minimum requirement of five
(5) years for readmission to the Bar.
ISSUE:
Should Gutierrez be disbarred again?
HELD: No, however he is found guilty of miss conduct.
The deliberate failure to pay his just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a
lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. 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. 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 reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
In the instant case, there is no question as to Gutierrez's guilt. His admission of the loan
he contracted and his failure to pay the same leaves no room for interpretation. Neither can he
justify his act of non-payment of debt by his dire financial condition. Gutierrez should not have
contracted loans which are beyond his financial capacity to pay.
Likewise, it cannot be overlook Gutierrez’s propensity of employing deceit and

misrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining debts without the intention of paying them.
Records show Gutierrez's pattern of habitually making promises of paying his debts, yet
repeatedly failing to deliver. The series of text messages he sent to Yuhico promising to pay his
loans, while simultaneously giving excuses without actually making good of his promises, is
clearly reprehensible. Undoubtedly, his acts demonstrate lack of moral character to satisfy the
responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court.
We also note that in Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez, the Court had already disbarred
Gutierrez from the practice of law for gross misconduct due to non-payment of just debts and
issuance of bouncing checks.
In view of the foregoing, while we agree with the findings of the IBP, we cannot,
however, adopt its recommendation to disbar Gutierrez for the second time, considering that
Gutierrez had already been previously disbarred. As IBP pointed out, we do not have double or
multiple disbarment in our laws or jurisprudence. Neither do we have a law mandating a
minimum 5-year requirement for readmission, as cited by the IBP. Thus, while Gutierrez's
infraction calls for the penalty of disbarment, we cannot disbar him anew.

Yuhico V Atty. Gutierrez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yuhico V Atty. Gutierrez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

8391 November 23, 2010

Should Gutierrez be disbarred again?

HELD: No, however he is found guilty of miss conduct.

Likewise, it cannot be overlook Gutierrez’s propensity of employing deceit and

You might also like