A.C. No. 6707 - Huyssen vs. Gutierrez

In 1995, while still with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez received from complainant Gisela Huyssen a total deposit of US$20,000 on six separate occasions (from April 1995 to April 1996).
The money was purportedly needed for the processing of Philippine visa applications under Section 13[g] of the Immigration Law for the complainant and her three American citizen sons.
Respondent assured complainant that the deposit was required by law, and that the amount could be withdrawn after a one-year period.

Respondent prepared petty cash vouchers/receipts confirming his receipt of the money, yet he refused complainant’s repeated requests for official receipts.
After the one-year period, complainant demanded the return of US$20,000, and respondent repeatedly promised to refund the money on specific dates.
Various letters were exchanged in which respondent explained delays and provided personal postdated checks meant to cover the refund.

A letter dated 1 March 1999 promised the refund by 9 March 1999.
In a subsequent letter dated 19 March 1999, respondent enclosed two blank postdated checks for complainant to fill in, which fizzled out when these checks were dishonored due to stop-payment orders.
Another letter dated 25 April 1999 included five postdated checks as a further promise to return the funds; however, these checks were also dishonored.

Despite repeated unfulfilled promises and subsequent legal demand letters from complainant's counsel, respondent failed to return the funds.
Complainant, represented by her lawyer and with intervention by the World Mission for Jesus (of which she was a member), escalated the matter by filing a complaint for disbarment before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The complaint was based on allegations of fraud and misappropriation by respondent, relying on the evidence of his signed vouchers and his own correspondence.

In his Counter-Affidavit dated 2 July 2001, respondent denied misappropriating the funds, asserting that he never physically received the money for personal use.
He alleged that the money was used as payment for services rendered in securing permanent visas for complainant and her family.
Respondent explained that:

He was introduced to the complainant through a mutual friend and assisted in the visa application process, which required a deposit of US$40,000 (with one part for complainant and a similar amount for her son Marcus who obtained an independent visa).
He coordinated with the late Atty. Mendoza, an immigration lawyer, to handle the petition.
He acted as the intermediary between complainant and her lawyer, processing the funds via vouchers bearing his signature.
Later, upon questioning the unusually high fees involved in attaining the visas, he learned from Atty. Mendoza of irregularities concerning the source and use of the funds, which purportedly belonged to the World Mission for Jesus rather than complainant.
He maintained that his subsequent actions (including signing vouchers and issuing postdated checks) were an admission to eventually cover the refund using personal funds once he managed to secure a loan.

Complainant submitted evidence in 2002 and 2003, and formally offered additional evidence on 25 August 2003.
Multiple hearings were scheduled for the reception of respondent’s evidence, but respondent repeatedly failed to appear (a total of 11 scheduled settings were reset), including a final scheduled hearing on 28 September 2004.
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted her report on 5 November 2004, recommending respondent’s disbarment based on the evidence.

Petty cash vouchers and receipts signed by respondent, attesting to the receipt of US$20,000.
Several letters (dated 1 March 1999, 19 March 1999, 25 April 1999, and 12 May 1999) wherein respondent acknowledged the deposit, promised repayment from personal funds, and issued postdated, ultimately dishonored checks.

The letters reveal respondent’s attempt to deflect blame by stating that funds were deposited with the BID, despite the absence of official receipts from the bureau.

Whether respondent Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez misappropriated the US$20,000 deposited by complainant under false pretenses related to visa processing.
Whether the issuance of postdated checks and the repeated failure to refund the deposited amount constitutes grounds for disbarment under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether respondent’s defense—that the funds were used to secure visas and delivered to a third party (the purported Atty. Mendoza)—is credible and substantiated by evidence.
Whether the conduct of a lawyer in a government position, using his office for private gain, violates Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and related ethical standards.