The Supreme Court found Atty. Dany B. Gille GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and Willful Disobedience of the Court's Orders, acts punishable by disbarment. However, because he had already been disbarred in Buenaventura v. Atty. Gille, the Court could no longer impose disbarment and instead imposed fines and ordered him to return funds to the complainant, Gregory A. Smith.
The Case
The matter arose from a Complaint, dated December 20, 2008, filed with the Court by Gregory A. Smith against Atty. Dany B. Gille, alleging that the latter embezzled funds entrusted to him during their lawyer-client relationship. The Complaint was signed and executed before a notary public commissioned in the State of Hawaii, certified by the Clerk of Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, State of Hawaii, and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, Hawaii. The case was docketed as A.C. No. 8368.
Smith is an American citizen residing in Kauai, Hawaii, married to Cherimy Alvarez Orsolino, a Filipino citizen. Atty. Gille, per the records of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), is a partner in Gille Labastilla Villanueva Sabio and Vitan Law Offices in Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City.
Smith alleged two distinct incidents. In the first, Atty. Gille was engaged to represent Smith and Orsolino in a case against Amihan Escarceo Holdings, Inc., relating to the purchase of two lots in Oriental Mindoro. Despite the passage of two years and receipt of legal fees amounting to USD 17,540.00, Atty. Gille did not file the case. Smith submitted a draft Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages that remained unsigned by Atty. Gille, and an email from BnG Real Estate confirming staggered withdrawals received by Atty. Gille.
The second incident concerned money entrusted to Atty. Gille for the purchase of a lot in favor of Orsolino from Sta. Lucia Land Development Company in Cabanatuan City. Despite full payment of USD 22,958.91, there was no record of any lot purchase or reservation under Orsolino's name with Sta. Lucia. Smith stated that Atty. Gille had since refused to take his calls.
The Court repeatedly directed Atty. Gille to file his comment, beginning with a Resolution dated September 23, 2009. A second copy of the same Complaint was docketed as A.C. No. 8413, and the two cases were consolidated. Atty. Gille did not comply with multiple Resolutions. He was fined, ordered to show cause, and eventually ordered arrested, but the Warrant of Arrest served at his registered address could not be executed because the occupants claimed no knowledge of his whereabouts.
The Issue
The Court considered whether Atty. Gille was administratively liable for his conduct and, given his prior disbarment, what penalty could still be imposed.
The Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Dany B. Gille GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and Willful Disobedience of the Court's Orders, which are punishable by disbarment. He was also found GUILTY of violating Canon II, Sections 1 and 5 and Canon III, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), as well as the Lawyer's Oath.
However, in view of his disbarment in Buenaventura v. Atty. Gille, the penalty of disbarment could no longer be imposed but should be considered should he apply for the lifting of his disbarment. In its place, the Court imposed fines: PHP 101,000.00 for gross and repeated violations of the CPRA and the Lawyer's Oath; PHP 35,000.00 for failure to comply with the directives of the IBP-CBD; and PHP 35,000.00 for failure to file a comment on the Complaint as repeatedly ordered. These amounts are to be paid within a period not exceeding three months from receipt of the Decision.
Respondent was also ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RETURN to Smith, with interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the date of finality until full payment: USD 17,500.00 for unrendered legal services; USD 22,958.91 intended for the purchase of real property; and PHP 10,000.00 for the filing fee of a case that was never filed.
By the Numbers
- Complaint dated December 20, 2008
- USD 17,540.00 — legal fees received in the first incident
- USD 22,958.91 — full payment for the lot purchase in the second incident
- PHP 101,000.00 — fine for gross and repeated violations
- PHP 35,000.00 — fine for failure to comply with IBP-CBD directives
- PHP 35,000.00 — fine for failure to file a comment
- USD 17,500.00, USD 22,958.91, and PHP 10,000.00 — amounts ordered returned to Smith
- 6% per annum — interest on the amounts to be returned
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained, citing Valmonte v. Atty. Quesada, that once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law. However, the Court can still give the corresponding penalty for the sole purpose of recording it in the lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be taken into consideration should the disbarred lawyer later file a petition to lift his disbarment.
The Court added that it may also impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer found to have committed an offense prior to disbarment, as the Court does not lose its exclusive jurisdiction over other offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer while still a member of the Law Profession. Under Canon VI, Section 42 of the CPRA, when a previously disbarred lawyer is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine or order the return of money or property to the client. The Court directed that copies of the Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the IBP, administrative and quasi-judicial agencies, and the Office of the Court Administrator.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in A.C. Nos. 8368 and 8413 (formerly CBD Case Nos. 20-6257 and 20-6258), penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.