Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Huysen V Gutierrez CD

    Uploaded by

    missperfectlyfine
    42 views1 page
    1) Complainant Huyssen filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Gutierrez stemming from a visa application where Gutierrez told Huyssen she needed to deposit $20,000 for a year for their applications to be approved. 2) Huyssen deposited the money but after a year, when she demanded it back, Gutierrez failed to return it and his checks bounced. 3) The Supreme Court disbarred Gutierrez for violating rules prohibiting unlawful acts and promoting private interests over public duties as a former government lawyer. They referred the case for criminal prosecution and administrative action.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    HUYSEN V GUTIERREZ CD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Complainant Huyssen filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Gutierrez stemming from a visa application where Gutierrez told Huyssen she needed to deposit $20,000 for a year for their applications to be approved. 2) Huyssen deposited the money but after a year, when she demanded it back, Gutierrez failed to return it and his checks bounced. 3) The Supreme Court disbarred Gutierrez for violating rules prohibiting unlawful acts and promoting private interests over public duties as a former government lawyer. They referred the case for criminal prosecution and administrative action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    Huysen V Gutierrez CD

    Uploaded by

    missperfectlyfine
    1) Complainant Huyssen filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Gutierrez stemming from a visa application where Gutierrez told Huyssen she needed to deposit $20,000 for a year for their applications to be approved. 2) Huyssen deposited the money but after a year, when she demanded it back, Gutierrez failed to return it and his checks bounced. 3) The Supreme Court disbarred Gutierrez for violating rules prohibiting unlawful acts and promoting private interests over public duties as a former government lawyer. They referred the case for criminal prosecution and administrative action.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Huyssen vs.

    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.

    ISSUE: W/N Atty. Gutierrez be disbarred? 

    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. 

    You might also like