In re David, Adm Case No. 98, July 13, 1953

1. LAWYERS; SE defines "practice the profession." - Practice as a lawyer is to practice the acts of his profession. To prepare and file motions requesting the execution of a sentence, the demolition of the homes of the defendants in the case asking the court to order the sheriff to betray him the amounts charged in the case are acts that fall within the exercise of the profession advocacy; the allegation and submit memorandum to the Appeals Tribunal do is practice as a lawyer, because an agent can not do it; the charge rents of more than a hundred defendants to issue receipts and signed as the applicant's counsel is to exercise the profession.

2. Id .; Id .; - The fact that the lawyer had not put in his motion requesting execution acting as a lawyer but as an agent and employee of the applicant, does not alter the nature of its services are certainly professional services of a lawyer. Hiding acting as a lawyer and was only pretending agent, their situation worsens; which is more guilty, covered with a mask, he shot his enemy who makes a pool and a view of the public face.

3. ID .; ATTORNEY SUSPENDED exercising the profession. - The suspended lawyer practicing the profession during the period of suspension will be completely disabled for such a profession in the Philippines with the consequent cancellation of the certificate issued in their favor as such attorney.

D E C I S I O N

PABLO, M. :

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 R. G. CA No. 4792-R cause, Tan Tek v Sy. Maliwanag not as counsel for Sy Tan Tek, but with the following words: "for and in Behalf of Tan Tek Sy"; on 26 January 1951 sent it 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 filed a motion in this court - and returned the file - requesting the issuance of a warrant of execution, which motion is signed as follows:

"TAN TEK SI

"By (Sgd.) FELIX P. DAVID,

"c/o Atty. Felix P. David,

"Corner Dagupan and Azcarraga St.,

"Filipinas Saw Mill & Construction,

"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. against Tolentino, the Respondent filed a brief on September 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, signing three letters, Exhibits A, B and C, as counsel for the applicant; the exhibits B to B-34 show that was receiving payments amounts of several defendants as counsel for the applicant; the oldest receipt is dated 12 February 1950 and last December 7, 1950. In defense resorted says appeared as counsel for Tan Tek Sy from the Municipal Court of Manila in 1948; which, being suspended, he had advised his client to seek other counsel to prepare the brief to be submitted to the Court of Appeal; when there were only two or three days and his client could not submit, 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 appellee. " 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 appellee but in good faith, I signed for and in Behalf of the appellee without designating That I am practicing as attorney-at-law. "cralaw virtua1aw library

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 in no obligation to continue to serve his client before the Court of Appeal; I must have noticed that your client was suspended in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer and was to advise him to employ another in his place if he wanted to be represented; 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 court except before a justice of the peace. When presenting its case and its memorandum with the words "For and in Behalf of the Appellee" violated Article 31 of Rule 127 which states that "In 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 the Court above all other considerations. We think not acting in good faith when, putting his interest in collecting their fees, engaged in the profession knowing that he was forbidden to exercise it. But he had not submitted their motions exhibits A, B and C and issued 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 legal profession; the allegation and submit memorandum to the Court of Appeal is to exercise the legal profession, because an agent can not do it; the charge rents of the 109 defendants issuing 35 receipts and signed as lawyer for the plaintiff, is to exercise the profession.

The fact that he had not put in his 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 that it was only an agent, their situation worsens: it 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 Case No. 35 . Therefore , he is ineligible to practice as a lawyer in the Philippines , it is declared canceled the certificate issued in their favor to practice and directed to return it to the Clerk of this Court.

FACTS: Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer for a period of five years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant admits this suspension in `his written report filed on March 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise the profession within the period of suspension, November 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954.

On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer but as an agent. (For and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek, subsequently Atty Felix David filed a motion for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc vs Tolentino, defendant filed a brief for an order to demolish homes.

“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 Tan Tek Identified Sy Even 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.”

ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law.

HELD: Yes. Neither can he allow his name to appear in such pleading by itself or as part of firm name under the signature of another qualified lawyer because the signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non-qualified senator or congressman, the office of an attorney being originally an agency, and because he will, by such act, be appearing in court or quasi-judicial or administrative body in violation of the constitutional restriction. “He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly.”