GISELA HUYSSEN vs. ATTY. FRED L.

GUTIERREZ
A.C. No. 6707; March 24, 2006
Facts:
A.

B.

A Complaint for disbarment was filed by Huyssen against respondent Atty. Fred
L. Gutierrez. Allegations are as follows:
that in 1995, while respondent was still connected with the Bureau of Immigration
and Deportation (BID), she (petitioner herein) and her three sons, who are all
American citizens, applied for Philippine Visas under Section 13[g] of the
Immigration Law
Respondent told the petitioner that their visa applications will be acted favourably
if they deposit a certain sum of money for a period of one year which could be
withdrawn after one year.
Complainant deposited with respondent on six different occasions from April
1995 to April 1996 the total amount of US$20,000, believing it was required by
law.
Respondent prepared receipts/vouchers as proofs that he received the amounts
deposited by the complainant but refused to give her copies of official receipts
despite her demands
Complainant demanded the deposited sum after a year but respondent failed to
return.
Thus, the World Mission for Jesus (of which complainant was a member) sent a
demand letter to respondent for the immediate return of the money
In a letter (March 9, 1999), respondent promised to release the amount not later
than 9 March 1999. But he failed to do so.
World Mission for Jesus sent another demand letter
In a letter explaining the alleged reasons for the delay in the release of deposited
amount (19 March 1999), he enclosed two blank checks postdated to 6 April and
20 April 1999 and authorized complainant to fill in the amounts.
When complainant deposited the postdated checks on their due dates, the same
were dishonored because respondent had stopped payment on the same.
In a letter (25 April 1999) respondent explained again for stopping payments and
gave complainant five postdated checks with the assurance that said checks
would be honoured
Complainant deposited the five postdated checks on their due dates but they
were all dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds or payment
thereon was ordered stopped by respondent.
Hence, complainant referred the matter to a lawyer who sent two demand letters
to respondent, which remained unheeded.
Complaint disbarment was filed by Huyssen in the Commission on Bar Discipline
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). On 15 November 2000, Victor C.
Fernandez, Director for Bar Discipline, required respondent to submit his answer
within 15 days from receipt thereof

C.

Counter-Affidavit dated 2 July 2001, respondent denied the allegations in the

complaint claiming that having never physically received the money mentioned in
the complaint, he could not have appropriated or pocketed the same. He said the
amount was used as payment for services rendered for obtaining the permanent
visas in the Philippines. Read defense below:

[a)Through a close-friend, Jovie Galaraga, a Pastor and likewise a

friend of the complainant, the latter was introduced to me at my
office at the Bureau of Immigration with a big problem concerning
their stay in the Philippines, herself and three sons, one of which is
already of major age while the two others were still minors then.
Their problem was the fact that since they have been staying in the
Philippines for almost ten (10) years as holders of missionary visas
(9G) they could no longer extend their said status as under the law
and related polic[i]es of the government, missionary visa holders
could only remain as such for ten (10) years after which they could
no longer extend their said status and have to leave the country.
b)Studying their case and being U.S. Citizen (sic), I advised them
that they better secure a permanent visa under Section 3 of the
Philippine Immigration Law otherwise known as Quota Visa and
thereafter, provided them with list of the requirements in obtaining
the said visa, one of which is that the applicant must have a
$40,000 deposited in the bank. I also inform that her son Marcus
Huyssen, who was already of major age, has to have the same
amount of show money separate of her money as he would be
issued separate visa, while her two minor children would be
included as her dependents in her said visa application. I advised
them to get a lawyer (sic), complainant further requested me to
refer to her to a lawyer to work for their application, which I did and
contacted the late Atty. Mendoza, an Immigration lawyer, to do the
job for the complainant and her family.
c)The application was filed, processed and followed-up by the said
Atty. Mendoza until the same was finished and the corresponding
permanent visa were obtained by the complainant and her family.
Her son Marcus Huyssen was given an independent permanent
visa while the other two were made as dependents of the
complainant. In between the processing of the papers and
becoming very close to the complainant, I became the intermediary
between complainant and their counsel so much that every amount
that the latter would request for whatever purpose was coursed
through me which request were then transmitted to the complainant
and every amount of money given by the complainant to their
counsel were coursed thru me which is the very reason why my
signature appears in the vouchers attached in the complaintaffidavit;
d)That as time goes by, I noticed that the amount appeared to be
huge for services of a lawyer that I myself began to wonder why

and, to satisfy my curiosity, I met Atty. Mendoza and inquired from

him regarding the matter and the following facts were revealed to
me:

F.

G.
1)That what was used by the complainant as her show
money from the bank is not really her money but money
of World Mission for Jesus, which therefore is a serious
violation of the Immigration Law as there was a
misrepresentation. This fact was confirmed later when
the said entity sent their demand letter to the
undersigned affiant and which is attached to the
complaint-affidavit; ECISAD
2)That worst, the same amount used by the
complainant, was the very same amount used by her
son Marcus Huyssen, in obtaining his separate
permanent visa. These acts of the complainant and her
son could have been a ground for deportation and
likewise constitute criminal offense under the
Immigration Law and the Revised Penal Code. These
could have been the possible reason why complainant
was made to pay for quite huge amount.
e)That after they have secured their visas, complainant and her
family became very close to undersigned and my family that I was
even invited to their residence several times;
f)However after three years, complainant demanded the return of
their money given and surprisingly they want to recover the same
from me. By twist of fate, Atty. Mendoza is no longer around, he
died sometime 1997;
g)That it is unfortunate that the real facts of the matter is now being
hidden and that the amount of money is now being sought to be
recovered from me;

H.

11 settings of hearings were all rest by respondent, who was allegedly out of the
country to attend to his client's needs. The last, on 28 September 2004,
respondent failed to appear, despite due notice and without just cause.
5 November 2004 Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted
her report recommending the disbarment of respondent
a.
Basis: From the letters sent by respondent, he made it appear that the
US$20,000 was officially deposited with the Bureau of Immigration
and Deportation. However, 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. It should also be noted
that respondent has failed to establish that the "late Atty. Mendoza"
referred to in his Counter-Affidavit really exists. There is not one
correspondence from Atty. Mendoza regarding the visa application of
complainant and his family, and complainant has also testified that
she never met this Atty. Mendoza referred to by respondent.
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
4 November 2004 IBP Board of Governors approved the Investigating
Commissioner's report with modification. Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez
was DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the amount
with legal interest from receipt of the money until payment.
a.
The case was also referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for
prosecution for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Acts and
to the Department of Justice for appropriate administrative action

Issue: WON respondent has violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and must severely penalized.
Held: YES.

h)That the fact is I signed the vouchers and being a lawyer I know
the consequences of having signed the same and therefore I had to
answer for it and pay. I tried to raised the fund needed but up to the
present my standby loan application has not been released and
was informed that the same would only be forthcoming second
week of August. The same should have been released last March
but was aborted due to prevalent condition. The amount to be paid,
according to the complainant has now become doubled plus
attorney's fees of P200,000.00.]

D.
E.

4 September 2002 and April 2003 Complainant submitted her evidence

25 August 2003 Complainant filed her Formal Offer of Evidence

SC explained that:
A. 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.
B. Defense of respondent remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence
on the matter. While he claims that Atty. Mendoza already died, he did not
present the death certificate of said Atty. Mendoza. Worse, the action of
respondent in shifting the blame to someone who has been naturally silenced by
fate, is not only impudent but downright ignominious. When the integrity of a
member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he deny the charges
against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He
must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which
at all times is expected of him. In the case at bar, respondent clearly fell short of
his duty. Records show that even though he was given the opportunity to answer

C.

D.

E.

the charges and controvert the evidence against him in a formal investigation, he
failed, without any plausible reason, to appear several times whenever the case
was set for reception of his evidence despite due notice. The defense of denial
proferred by respondent is, thus, not convincing. It is settled that denial is
inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by a strong
evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is
with nil evidentiary value
When respondent issued the postdated checks as his moral obligation, he
indirectly admitted the charge. Such admissions were also apparent in the letters
of respondent to complainant. (lifted parts of the letter were quoted by SC
decision)
Normally, this is not the actuation of one who is falsely accused of appropriating
the money of another. As correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner,
respondent would not have issued his personal checks if said amount were
officially deposited with the BID. This is an admission of misconduct.
WHAT WAS VIOLATED IN THE CPR?
a.
Respondent's act of asking money from complainant in consideration
of the latter's pending application for visas is violative of Rule 1.01,
which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in
any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts.
b.
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code
which bars lawyers in government service from promoting their private
interest. Promotion 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.
i. Respondent's conduct in office betrays the integrity and
good moral character required from all lawyers, especially
from one occupying a high public office. A lawyer in public
office is expected not only to refrain from any act or
omission which might tend to lessen the trust and
confidence of the citizenry in government; he must also
uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times and
observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper
of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps higher than his brethren in
private practice.
ii. In a desperate attempt to put up a smoke or to camouflage
his misdeed, he went on committing another by issuing
several worthless checks, thereby compounding his case.
iii. Respondent's acts are more despicable. 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. Clearly, he
does not deserve to continue, being a member of the bar.
iv. 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. He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the
high standards of the legal profession subjects the lawyer

F.

to administrative sanctions which includes suspension and

disbarment. 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.
v. Indeed, the primary objective of administrative cases
against lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the
erring individual lawyers but also to safeguard the
administration of justice by protecting the courts and the
public from the misconduct of lawyers, and to remove from
the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of their
lawyer's oath have proven them unfit to continue
discharging the trust reposed in them as members of the
bar. These pronouncement gain practical significance in
the case at bar considering that respondent was a former
member of the Board of Special Inquiry of the BID. It bears
stressing also 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. 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.
vi. Respondent's acts constitute gross misconduct; and
consistent with the need to maintain the high standards of
the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal
profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of
expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers
Atty. Fred L. 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.
a.
This 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.
b.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant to be
spread on the records of the respondent; the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of the
Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the
country.

-----------------------------------

PCGG v SANDIGANBAYAN

*kalokohan na kaso to, 140++ pages (disclaimer) main decision 28 pages lang

** merong history of Rule 6.03 and other historical stuff sa case

Facts:

1976: General Bank & Trust Company (Genbank) encountered financial

difficulties. Central Bank extended loans to Genbank in the hope of
rehabilitating it (P310M). Nonetheless, Genbank failed to recover.
1977: Genbank was declared insolvent. A public bidding of Genbanks
assets was held with the Lucio Tan Group winning the bid. Solicitor
General Mendoza, representing the government, intervened with the
liquidation of Genbank.
1986: after EDSA I, Cory established the PCGG to recover the ill-gotten
wealth of Marcos, his family and cronies.
1987: PCGG filed a case against Lucio Tan and certain other people (basta
marami sila). In relation to this case, PCGG issued several writs of
sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by the respondents by taking
advantage of their close relationship and influence with Marcos.
Sandiganbayan heard the case.
Estelito Mendoza (Solicitor General during the time of Marcos) represented
the respondents.
1991: PCGG filed a motion to disqualify Mendoza, because of his
participation in the liquidation of Genbank. Genbank (now Allied Bank) is
one of the properties that PCGG is seeking to be sequestered from the
Lucion Tan group. PCGG invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Sandiganbayan denied PCGGs motion. According to the Sandiganbayan,
Mendoza did not take an adverse position to that taken on behalf of the
Central Bank. And Mendozas appearance as counsel was beyond the 1 year
prohibitory period since he retired in 1986.

Concurring Opinions:

W/N Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility apllies to Estelito

Mendoza

Panganiban & Carpio: the congruent interest prong of Rule 6.03 should
have a prescriptive period
Tinga: Rule 6.03 cannot apply retroactively to Mendoza (when he was
Solicitor General, no Rule 6.03 yet)
Bottom line, they are all questioning the unfairness of the rule if applied
without any prescriptive period and if applied retroactively

Notes:

Issue:

Genbank. This is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
The matter involved in the liquidation of Genbank is entirely different from
the matter involved in the PCGG case against the Lucio Tan group.
The intervention contemplated in Rule 6.03 should be substantial and
important. The role of Mendoza in the liquidation of Genbank is considered
insubstantial.
SC is even questioning why PCGG took such a long time to revive the
motion to disqualify Mendoza. Apparently, PCGG already lost a lot of cases
against Mendoza. Kyles interpretation: PCGG getting desperate
Something to think about: SC is somehow of the opinion that Rule 6.03 will
make it harder for the government to get good lawyers in the future to work
for them because of the prohibition of accepting cases in the future that
were related to ones work as a government counsel.

Adverse-interest conflicts where the matter in which the former

government lawyer represents a client in private practice is substantially
related to a matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed with the
government and the interests of the current and former are adverse
Congruent-interest conflicts the use of the word conflict is a misnomer,
it does not involve conflicts at all, as it prohibits lawyers from representing
a private person even if the interests of the former government client and
the new client are entirely parallel
Matter any discrete, isolatable act as well as indentifiable transaction or
conduct involving a particular situation and specific party
Intervention interference that may affect the interests of others

Held:

No, it does not apply to Mendoza. Sandiganbayan decision is affirmed.

The matter (see 3rd note), or the act of Mendoza as Solicitor General is
advising the Central Bank on how to proceed with the liquidation of

-------------------------------------------

FACTS:
Respondent, atty Sagucio was a former Personnel
manager and Counsel of Taggat Industries Inc.
Thereafter in 1992, he was appointed as Asst. Provincial
prosecutor of Tuguegarao Cagayan . Employees of
Taggat filed criminal charges against the complainant
who took over the management and control of Taggat,
withheld the payment of their wages and salaries without
a valid cause. The complainant charges respondent with
the engaging in private practice of law while working as a
government prosecutor and for violation of Rule 15.03 of
CPR.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the respondent violated Rule 15.03 of
CPR.
2. Whether or not being a former lawyer of Taggat
posits conflict of interests with his work as Asst.
Provincial Prosecutor
HELD:
The Court finds that there is no conflict of interest on the
part of the respondent when he handled the preliminary
investigation of the criminal charges filed by the Taggat
Employees. The issue of the matter of the criminal
complaint was pertaining to the withholding of the wages
and salaries of the Taggat employees which occurred
from April 1, 1996 to July 15, 1997. Evidently, the
respondent was no longer connected with the Taggat Inc
during such period since he is working as Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor since 1992. Should there be
apparent conflict of interest, it must be supported by
sufficient evidence that Taggat, respondents former

client, used any confidential information from his

preceding employment with Complainant in resolving the
filed criminal complaint.

As the former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel

of Taggat together with the case he handled as
government t prosecutor was labor-related case which
fact, is not a sufficient basis to charge respondent for
representing conflicting interests.