Huysen V Gutierrez CD
Huysen V Gutierrez CD
Gutierrez
485 SCRA 244, March 24, 2006
AC No. 6707
Facts: Complainant Huyssen filed a disbarment case against respondent Gutierrez which
stemmed from a visa application, for which complainant along with her three sons, applied for.
Accordingly, respondent told complainant that in order that their visa applications will be
favorably acted by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), complainant needed to
deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one year which could be withdrawn after one
year. Believing that the deposit was indeed required by law, complainant deposited with
respondent the amount totaling $20,000. Respondent prepared vouchers/ receipts for complainant
as proof that he received the amount but refused to give her complainant official receipts despite
demands. After one
year, complainant demanded from the respondent the return of $20,000 who assured her that said
amount would be returned. However, respondent failed to return the money. Demands were
made by the complainant and the World Mission for Jesus, but demands remain unheeded.
Respondent issued several postdated checks to cover the deposited amount, but the same were
dishonored. Thus, complainant file a complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines trial for the disbarment ensued.
Held:
Respondent disbarred.
The Supreme Court ordered respondent Atty. Gutierrez DISBARRED from the practice of law
and ordered the return of the amount he received from the complainant with legal interest from
his receipt until payment. The same case is also referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for
criminal prosecution and DOJ from appropriate administrative action. In its decision, the
Supreme Court gave emphasis on the violation of the respondent of Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the
CPR. The court further referred to Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits members of
the bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful acts.
Atty. Gutierrez’ act of asking money from the complainant in consideration of the latter’s visa
application goes against Rule 1.01 and Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
● For Rule 1.01: prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful,
dishonest, or deceitful acts.
● For Rule 6.02: bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private interest. ○
Promoting of private interest includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any
transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his
office.
● He even compounded his case by issuing several worthless checks in an attempt to camouflage
his misdeed. These pronouncements gain practical significance in the case at bar given that Atty.
Gutierrez was a former member of the Board of Special Inquiry of the BID. It bears stressing that
government lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to the public service, a public trust. As
such, government lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their
disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.