Huyssen vs atty Gutierrez

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
complainants 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 respondents conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and
merits the penalty of disbarment?

Ruling

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.

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.

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.
 Tapucar vs Atty Tapucar

Facts

In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought
the disbarment of her husband, Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly
immoral conduct for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Pea under scandalous
circumstances.

Prior to this complaint, respondent was already administratively charged four times for conduct
unbecoming an officer of the court. in Administrative Matter No. 1740, resolved on April 11,
1980, respondent, at that time the Judge of Butuan City, was meted the penalty of six months
suspension without pay, while in Administrative Matter Nos. 1720, 1911 and 2300-CFI, which
were consolidated, this Court on January 31, 1981 ordered the separation from service of
respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent violated canon 1 of the code of professional responsibility

Ruling:

Yes.

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.

A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by
faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. Exacted
from him, as a member of the profession charged with the responsibility to stand as a shield in
the defense of what is right, are such positive qualities of decency, truthfulness and
responsibility that have been compendiously described as moral character. To achieve such
end, every lawyer needs to strive at all times to honor and maintain the dignity of his profession,
and thus improve not only the public regard for the Bar but also the administration of justice.