Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

AC No. 98 July 13, 1958
In Case of Advocate FELIX DAVID P.
D. Felix P. David in his own representation.
Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Ruperto Kapunan, Jr. and Attorney, Mr. Esmeraldo Umali on behalf of the
In the administrative case No. 35 the appeal was suspended by bad practices in the exercise of his profession for a
period of five years starting from November 9, 1949. The appeal supports this suspension in its report 17 March
1951; however, he continued to exercise the profession within the period of the suspension, November 9 from 1949
to 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 a lawyer Sy Tan Tek, but with the following words: "for and in Behalf of Sy Tan Tek"; 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 tabled 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. against Tolentino,
the Respondent submitted a brief in septiembe 25, 1950, for an order demolition of the homes of the defendants
(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
and plaintiff attorney dela; the oldest is dated receipt 12of February 1950 and last December 7, 1950.
In defense resorted says appeared as counsel for Sy Tan Tek 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 submit sucliente, 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 any 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 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 or
as agent or a lawyer; I was not obliged to continue serving their 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 magistrate. 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 litigation 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
that acted in good faith, which I present them 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 consideracion.Creemos
not acting in good faith who, putting his interest in collecting their fees, exercises the profession knowing that he was
forbidden to exercise. Even if he had not submitted their motions exhibits A, B and C yexpedido receipts B to B-34
amounts recovered from the defendants, the Respondent could collect their fees directly from their already
demanding customer, 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 that he was suspended from the exercise of the profession.Although not
taken into account this hearing, the Respondent cannot be saved for having provided various professional services
and reported.
Practice as a lawyer is to practice the acts of his profession. The prepare and submit motions asking for the
execution of the judgment, the demolition of the homes of the defendants, asking the court to order the Shereiff to
betray him the amounts collected are acts that are part of the exercise of the profession of abogacioa; the present
allegation and memorandum to the Court of Appeal is to exercise the profession of lawyer, because an agent can
not do; 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 put in his motion for order of 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 lawyer Tan Tek Sy
and pretending it was solamanete an agent, their situation is worsening: it is more guilty than covered with a mask,
shot his enemy who does unveiled face and eyes the public; Hence the criminal law imposes more severe sentence
in the first case.
The evidence of record shows that the 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 is ordered to return it to the Clerk of this Court.
Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Juice, Angelo Bautista and Labrador, JJ., Concur.