EN BANC

[Adm. Case No. 98. July 13, 1953.]

In the case of the lawyer FELIX P. DAVID.

D. Felix P. David in his own representation.

The Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. and the Procurator, Mr. Esmeraldo
Umali on behalf of the government.

SYLLABUS

1. LAWYERS; THE TERM IS DEFINED "EXERCISE THE PROFESSION." - To practice the profession of a lawyer
is to practice the acts of that profession. The preparation and presentation of motions requesting the
execution of a sentence, the demolition of the houses of the defendants in the case asking the Court to
order the sheriff to deliver the amounts collected in the case are acts that are part of the exercise of the
profession of advocacy; to present a plea and memorandum before the Court of Appeal is to practice the
profession of lawyer, because an agent can not do so; Collecting rents from the more than one hundred
defendants issuing receipts and signing them as the plaintiff's lawyer means practicing the profession.

2. ID .; ID; - The fact that the lawyer had not put in his motion asking for execution that he acted as a
lawyer but as agent and employee of the plaintiff, does not alter the nature of his services which are
certainly professional lawyer services. Concealing that he acted as a lawyer and pretending that he was only
an agent, his situation becomes worse; It is more guilty that, covered with a mask, shoot at your enemy
than the one who does it bare-faced and in view of the public.

3. ID .; SUSPENDED LAWYER EXERCISING THE PROFESSION. - The suspended lawyer who practices the
profession during the period of the suspension must be completely disqualified to practice this profession in
the Philippines with the consequent cancellation of the certificate issued in his favor as such lawyer.

DECISION

PABLO, M .:

In administrative case No. 35, the respondent was suspended for malpractice in the exercise of his
profession of attorney for a period of five years as of November 9, 1949. The respondent admits this
suspension in his written report presented on 17 March 1951; however, he continued to practice the
profession within the period of the suspension, November 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954.

On February 28, 1950, the petitioner presented a plea (Exhibit J) in case CA GR No. 4792-R, Tan Tek Sy
v. Maliwanag, not as a lawyer for Tan Tek Sy, but with the following words: "for and on behalf of Tan Tek
Sy"; on January 26, 1951 it was sent by certified mail notification of the decision in said case (Exhibit G),
confirming the decision of the Court of First Instance; On March 13, 1951, he filed a motion in said court -
already returned the file - requesting the issuance of an execution order, which motion is signed as follows:
c hanrobles .com.ph
jgc :

"TAN TEK SI

" By (Sgd.) FELIX P. DAVID,

"c / o Atty, Felix P. David,

" Corner Dagupan and Azcarraga St.,

"Philippines Saw Mill & Construction,

The respondent therefore presented the brief not as lawyers in practice usually do, but as an agent of Tan
Tek Sy.

In Civil Case No. 3658 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. against
Tolentino, the respondent filed a brief on September 25, 1950, requesting an order to demolish the houses
of the defendants (Exhibit TO); On October 10, 1950, he filed a motion asking that the Manila Sheriff be
authorized to pay "the amount or such other amount as may be collected by the Sheriff from time to time"
(Exhibit B); on November 13, 1950, he filed another motion (Exhibit C) requesting another demolition order,
signing the three writings, Exhibits A, B and C, as the plaintiff's attorney; exhibits B through B-34 show that
he was receiving payments of amounts from several defendants as the plaintiff's attorney;

In defense the appellant says that he appeared as a lawyer for Tan Tek Sy from the Municipal Court of
Manila in 1948; that, upon being suspended, he had advised his client to seek another lawyer to prepare the
plea that was to be presented before the Court of Appeal; that when there were only two or three days left
and his client could not present it, he wrote and presented it at the request of his client; that he prepared
the plea with the intention that his client sign it, but since this was in Dagupan and he could not sign it and
there was only one day left, then he signed it as follows: "Felix P. David, for and on behalf of the appellee.
" On September 25, 1950, I filed with the Court of Appeal a memorandum in response to the appellant,
signed as is the plea.

"In order - says the appellant - to show that I did not have the intention to disregard the suspension of the
Supreme Court, I did not with the knowledge of Tan Tek Sy even identified myself as the attorney for the
appellee but in good faith, I signed for and on behalf of the appellee without designating that I am practicing
as attorney-at-law. "c ralawvirtua1aw library

We do not believe that the action of the respondent is justified in presenting the plea and his memorandum
on behalf of his client being suspended in the exercise of his profession; knowing that he was suspended, he
should not have introduced them as an agent or as a lawyer; he was under an obligation not to continue
serving his client before the Court of Appeal; he had to warn his client that he was suspended in the
exercise of his profession as a lawyer and should advise him to use another in his place if he wanted
representation; it should not contravene the express order of this Court; I should have known that a non-
practicing lawyer can not be brought before a court by a litigant except before a court of law. When I
present your plea and your memorandum with the following words "For and on behalf of the
Appellee" infringed Article 31 of Rule 127 which provides that "In the other courts, a party may conduct its
own litigation personally or with the help of a lawyer, and his appearance shall be made personally or
through a duly authorized member of the Forum." An agent or a proxy or a member of the suspended
Forum can not appear for a litigant.

To explain the filing of the motions in Case No. 3655, Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. against Tolentino, the
respondent says that I act in good faith, that I present them not to disobey the decision of this Court but to
charge their fees. As an official of the Forum, the lawyer must comply with the decision of this Court above
any other consideration. We believe that he does not act in good faith who, putting his interest in the
collection of his fees, exercises the profession knowing that he was not allowed to exercise it. Even if he had
not submitted his motions exhibits A, B and C and issued receipts B to B-34 for amounts collected from the
defendants, the respondent could have charged his fees, and demanded directly from his client, and claimed
them in accordance with the article 33 Rule 127.

The appellant says that if he 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., it was at the request of his brother-in-law Juan de la
Torre and also the I do not charge fees for his appearance because I knew he was suspended in the exercise
of the profession. Although this appearance was not taken into account, the respondent can not be saved by
having provided the various professional services already reported.

To practice the profession of a lawyer is to practice the acts of that profession. The preparation and
presentation of motions requesting the execution of the sentence, the demolition of the houses of the
defendants, asking the court to order the Sheriff to deliver the amounts collected, are acts that are part of
the exercise of the legal profession; to present a plea and memorandum before the Court of Appeal is to
practice the profession of lawyer, because an agent can not do it; Collecting rents from the 109 defendants,
issuing 35 receipts and signing them as the plaintiff's lawyer, is practicing the profession.
The fact that he had not put his motion for an execution order 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 his services that are certainly professional lawyer services; but, concealing that he acted
as a lawyer for Tan Tek Sy and pretending that he was only an agent, his situation is aggravated: it is more
guilty that, covered with a mask, he shoots against his enemy than the one who does it bare-faced and in
sight from the public; hence the criminal law imposes more severe punishment in the first case.

The evidence in the case file shows that the defendant Felix P. David exercised the profession of a lawyer by
intentionally disregarding the decision of this Court of September 30, 1949, Administrative Case No. 35.

Therefore, he is disqualified from practicing as a lawyer In the Philippines, the certificate issued in their
favor to exercise the profession is declared canceled and ordered to return it to the Clerk of this Court.

Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Angelo Bautista and Labrador, MM., Are satisfied.