AC No.

98 July 13, 1958

In Case of Advocate FELIX DAVID P.

PAUL J. :

In the administrative case No. 35 respondent was suspended for misfeasance in the exercise of his profession
for a period of five years from the 9 November 1949. The appeal supports this suspension in its report 17
March 1951; however, continued to exercise the profession within the period of the suspension, November 9th
1949 and November 8, 1954.

On February 28, 1950 the Respondent submitted a claim (Exhibit J) in the case CA GR No. 4792-R, Tan Tek
vs. Sy Maliwanag not as counsel for Sy Tan Tek, but with the following words: "for and in Behalf of Tan Tek
Sy"; on January 26, 1951 he was sent by certified mail notification of the decision in that case (Exhibit G),
confirming the decision of the Court of First Instance; on March 13, 1951 I filed a motion in this court - ye
returned the file - requesting the issuance of a warrant of execution, which motion is signed as follows:

Tan Tek If By (Sgd.) Felix P. David,% Atty. Felix P. David, Dagupan and Azcarrag St. Corner Saw Mill &
Construction Philippines, Manila

The present appeal therefore written not as they do practicing lawyers, but as an agent Sy Tan Tek.

In the civil case No. 3658 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. Contra
Tolentino, the Respondent filed a brief septiembe 25, 1950, requesting an order to demolish the homes of the
respondents (Exhibit TO); on October 10, 1950 I filed a motion asking the Sheriff of Manila was authorized to
pay "the amount or other amount Such as May be Collected by the Sheriff from time to time" (Exhibit B); on
November 13, 1950 I present another motion (Exhibit C) asking another demolition order, signed three letters,
ExhibitsA, B and C, as counsel for the applicant; the exhibits B to B-34 show that was receiving payments
amounts of several defendants as a lawyer dela applicant; the oldest receipt is dated February 12, 1950 and
last December 7, 1950.

In defense resorted says appeared as counsel for Tan Tek Sy from the Municipal Court Manilaen 1948; which,
being suspended, he had advised sucliente that seek another lawyer to prepare the claim to be submitted to
the Court of Appeal; when there were only two or three days and could not sucliente present, he himself wrote
and presented at the request of his client; the allegation that arrangement with the intention of his client to sign
it, but as this was in Dagupan and could not sign and there was more than one day, then I sign it as follows:
"Felix P. David, for and in Behalf of the appeellee. " on September 25, 1950 I present to the Court of Appeal a
memorandum in reply to the appellant, signed as this allegation.

In order - says the appeal - to show That I Did not Have the intention to disregard the suspension of the
Supreme Court, I did not With the knowledge of even Identified Sy Tan Tek myself as the attorney for
the appelles but in good faith, I signed for and in Behalf of the appellee without designating That I am
practicing as attorney-at-law.

We do not think this justified the performance of the resorted to submit the claim and its memorandum on
behalf of his client being suspended in the exercise of their profession; knowing I was suspended, I ought to
have presented either as an agent or a lawyer; I was not obliged to continue serving its Customers to the Court
of Appeal; I must have noticed that your client was suspended in the exercise of his profession and debvia
advise you employ another in his place if Geria have representation; ought not contravene the express order
of this Court; He must know that he who is not a practicing lawyer can not appear for trial before a expecto
trivunal before a justice of the peace. When I am presenting its case and its memorandum with the words "For
and in Behalf of the Appelle" violated Article 31 of Rule 127 which states that 'In all other courts, a party can run
their own dispute personally or with the help of a lawyer, and his appearance must be made in person or by a
member of the Forum duly authorized. "An agent or an attorney or a member of the Forum suspended may not
appear for trial.
To explain the presentation of motions in case No. 3655, Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. against Tolentino, the appeal
says I act in good faith, that I present not to disobey the decision of this Court but to collect their fees. As an
officer of the Forum, the lawyer must comply with the judgment of this Court over any other consideration. We
believe that not acting in good faith when, putting his interest in collecting their fees, engaged in the profession
knowing that he was forbidden to exercise . But had not submitted their motions exhibits A, B and C expedido
receipts B to B-34 amounts recovered from the defendants, the Respondent could collect their fees directly
from their already demanding client, and claiming them in accordance with Article 33 rule 127.

The appeal says that if appeared on March 2, 1950 in case No. 7679 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Juan de la Torre against Philippine Trust Co., was by request of his brother Juan de la Torre and also the I do
not charge fees for his appearance because he knew he was suspended from the exercise of the profession.
Although not taken into account this hearing, the Respondent can not save for having provided various
professional services and reported.

Practice as a lawyer is to practice the acts of his profession. To prepare and file motions requesting the
execution of the judgment, the demolition of the houses of the defendants, asking the court to order the Sheriff
to betray him the amounts collected are acts that fall within the exercise of the profession of being a lawyer; the
allegation and submit memorandum to the Court of Appeal is to exercise the legal profession, because an
agent cannot do it;alquilers the charge of issuing 35 109 defendants receipts and signed as lawyer for the
plaintiff, is to exercise the profession.

The fact that the hapia not set in its motion for order execution in Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. against Tolentino, who
acted as a lawyer but as an agent and employee of the Philippines Sawmill and Construction, does not alter the
nature of its services they are certainly professional services of a lawyer; but hiding who acted as counsel for
Tan Tek Sy and pretending it was solamanete an agent, their situation is worsening: is more guilty that covered
with a mask, shot his enemy who does open face and in view the public; Hence the criminal law imposes more
severe sentence in the first case.

The evidence of record shows that respondent Felix P. David practiced law attorney intentionally disobeying the
decision of the Court of September 30, 1949, Administrative Cause No 35.

Therefore, he is ineligible to practice as a lawyer in the Philippines, it is declared cancelled the certificate issued
in their favor to practice and directed to return it to the Clerk of this Court.