G.R. No. A.C. No. 6707 ; March 24, 2006
GISELA HUYSSEN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gisela Huyssen, an American citizen, alleged that in 1995, while respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez was connected with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), he advised her that a monetary deposit was required for her family’s visa applications under the Immigration Law. Trusting this representation, she deposited a total of US$20,000 with him over several months. Respondent issued receipts but withheld official copies. After a year, complainant demanded the money’s return. Respondent repeatedly promised repayment, even issuing postdated checks, but these were dishonored either due to stop-payment orders or insufficient funds. Despite subsequent demands from complainant and her counsel, respondent failed to return the funds.
Respondent denied misappropriation, claiming the money was payment for legal services rendered by a separate lawyer he recommended for the visa applications. He asserted his signatures on the vouchers were merely as an intermediary. He further alleged the money was not complainant’s personal funds but belonged to the World Mission for Jesus, implying misrepresentation in the visa process. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found respondent liable and recommended disbarment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be disbarred.

RULING

Yes, respondent is disbarred. The Supreme Court found respondent’s defense untenable. His claim of acting merely as an intermediary is contradicted by the receipts he signed acknowledging direct receipt of the funds from complainant. His subsequent issuance of dishonored checks and repeated unfulfilled promises to repay solidify his direct financial obligation and deceitful conduct. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s fiduciary duty demands the highest degree of fidelity and good faith. By exploiting his former government position to solicit a deposit under false pretenses and then converting the money for his own use, respondent committed grossly dishonest and deceitful acts.
These actions constitute clear violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct) and Rule 6.02 (prohibiting a lawyer in government service from using his public position for private interest). The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and respondent’s gross misconduct demonstrates his unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. To preserve public confidence in the legal profession, the ultimate penalty of disbarment is warranted. The Court also ordered respondent to return the US$20,000 with legal interest and referred the case for potential criminal and administrative prosecution.