Huyssen vs. Gutierrez

CASE DIGEST: A.C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration and Deportation officer, received US$20,000 from complainant Huyssen. Accused of falsely representing that it was needed in complainant’s application for visa and failing to return the same, respondent denied misappropriating the said amount, claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who assisted complainant and children in their application for visa. He failed however to substantiate such denial.

Atty. Gutierrez had many alibis on why the money could not immediately be returned to the complainant, and promised her several times that he would repay her out of his personal funds. He even issued personal post-dated checks on this, but which later bounced.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent’s conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and merits the penalty of disbarment?

HELD:

Yes, the respondent should be disbarred.

The defense of denial proferred by respondent is not convincing. It is settled that denial, which is inherently a weak defense, to be believed must be buttressed by a strong evidence of non-culpability. The evidence, respondent’s letters to the complainant, shows that he made it appear that the US$20,000 was officially deposited with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. If this is true, how come only Petty Cash Vouchers were issued by respondent to complainant to prove his receipt of the said sum and official receipts therefore were never issued by the said Bureau? Also, why would respondent issue his personal checks to cover the return of the money to complainant if said amount was really officially deposited with the Bureau of Immigration? All these actions of respondent point to the inescapable conclusion that respondent received the money from complainant and appropriated the same for his personal use.

Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.

Considering that respondent was able to perpetrate the fraud by taking advantage of his position with the Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, makes it more reprehensible as it has caused damage to the reputation and integrity of said office. It is submitted that respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which reads:

"A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties."

Also, the act of issuing a bouncing check shows moral turpitude. Respondent's acts are more despicable, for not only did he misappropriate the money of complainant; worse, he had the gall to prepare receipts with the letterhead of the BID and issued checks to cover up his misdeeds.

Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are competent intellectually, academically and morally.

A lawyer must at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach. More importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice; otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.

As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal profession. Section 27 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for, among other acts, gross misconduct in office.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount he received from the complainant with legal interest from his receipt of the money until payment. The case shall be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for criminal prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts and to the Department of Justice for appropriate administrative action.

(Copyright 2008 - This original digest of a Supreme Court case may be copied, distributed or modified in any medium provided you acknowledge barops-philjuris.blogspot.com.)