In Re: David (94 Phil 461)

The case was originally in Spanish text

Facts: Respondent, Atty. Felix David was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer for a period of five years starting from November 9, 1949. The respondent admits this suspension in his written report filed on March 17, 1951, yet, he continued to exercise the profession within the period of suspension which is from November 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954.

On Feb 28 1950, respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek Si vs Maliwanag, not as counsel for Tan Tek Si but with the following words: For and in behalf of Tan Tek Si. CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek Si, subsequently Atty Felix David filed a motion for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called Malayan Saw Mill Inc vs Tolentino, respondent filed a brief for an order to demolish homes, issued receipts to the defendants and collected fees.

Respondent held that: In order 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 Si identified myself as the attorney for the appellees, but In good faith, I signed for and in behalf of the appellee (as an agent) without designating that I am practicing as attorney-atlaw.

Issues: 1. Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law? 2. Whether or not such practice is valid since he is suspended from practicing his profession?

Held: 1. Yes. Generally, to engage in the practice is to do any of those acts which are characteristic of the legal profession. It covers any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal principles, practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience.

The filing of Atty. Felix David of the motion of execution as well as the filing of the brief for an order to demolish homes is tantamount to practice of law.

2. No. A suspended lawyer, during his suspension, is certainly prohibited from engaging in the practice of law[ Knowing that he was suspended, he should not have presented himself as an agent or as an Attorney. He should know that he is not a practicing lawyer and can not appear as a litigator before a court.

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.

 Rule 138 Rules of Court Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. Section 28.Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises.