Facts:

The case involves Felix P. David, a lawyer who was suspended from practicing law for five years starting November 9, 1949, due to malpractice. Despite this suspension, David continued to engage in legal practice during the suspension period, which lasted until November 8, 1954. On February 28, 1950, he filed a pleading in the case CA G.R. No. 4792-R, Tan Tek Sy vs. Maliwanag, not as the attorney for Tan Tek Sy but rather as "for and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy." On January 26, 1951, he received a certified mail notification regarding the decision in that case. Subsequently, on March 13, 1951, he filed a motion in the same court, signing it as "TAN TEK SI by (Sgd.) FELIX P. DAVID." In another case, Civil Case No. 3658, Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. vs. Tolentino, David filed several motions, including a request for demolition orders, and signed these documents as the attorney for the plaintiff. Evidence showed that he received payments from various defendants while ac...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Felix P. David, a lawyer, was suspended from practicing law for five years starting November 9, 1949, due to unethical practices. Despite this, he continued to engage in legal activities during his suspension period, which lasted until November 8, 1954.

Specific Instances of Unauthorized Practice

1. Case CA G.R. No. 4792-R (Tan Tek Sy vs. Maliwanag)

   • On February 28, 1950, David filed a pleading (Exhibit J) on behalf of Tan Tek Sy, signing it as "for and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy."
   • On March 13, 1951, he filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, signing it as "TAN TEK SI by (Sgd.) FELIX P. DAVID, c/o Atty. Felix P. David."
   • David claimed he acted as an agent, not as a lawyer, but the court found this to be a violation of his suspension.

2. Civil Case No. 3658 (Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. vs. Tolentino)

   • On September 25, 1950, David filed a motion for a demolition order (Exhibit A).
   • On October 10, 1950, he filed another motion requesting the Sheriff to pay certain amounts (Exhibit B).
   • On November 13, 1950, he filed a third motion for another demolition order (Exhibit C).
   • All motions were signed as the lawyer for the plaintiff.
   • Receipts (Exhibits B to B-34) showed David collected payments from defendants as the plaintiff's lawyer, with the earliest receipt dated February 12, 1950, and the latest on December 7, 1950.

3. Other Instances

   • On March 2, 1950, David appeared in Case No. 7679 (Juan de la Torre vs. Philippine Trust Co.) at the request of his brother-in-law, claiming he did not charge fees.
   • Despite his suspension, David continued to perform acts characteristic of legal practice, such as preparing pleadings, filing motions, and collecting payments.

David's Defense

• David argued that he acted in good faith, claiming he prepared pleadings and motions only to assist his clients and not to defy the Supreme Court's suspension order.
• He stated that he did not identify himself as a lawyer in some instances and acted as an agent or employee of his clients.
• He also claimed that his actions were motivated by the need to collect his fees.

Issue:

1. Whether Felix P. David violated the Supreme Court's suspension order by continuing to practice law during his suspension period.
2. Whether David's actions, such as filing pleadings and motions, and collecting payments, constituted the practice of law despite his suspension.
3. Whether David's defense of acting in good faith and as an agent rather than a lawyer is valid.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)