Adm. Case No. 98 - IN RE: David

Felix P. David was suspended from the practice of law for five years starting November 9, 1949, for misconduct in the exercise of his profession (Administrative Case No. 35).
David admitted to this suspension in a written report dated March 17, 1951.

Despite suspension, David continued to practice law from November 9, 1949, to November 8, 1954.
On February 28, 1950, David filed a pleading in the case Tan Tek Sy vs. Maliwanag (CA G.R. No. 4792-R) using the phrase “for and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy,” not explicitly as counsel.
On January 26, 1951, David was notified by certified mail of the appellate decision confirming the trial court’s ruling in the said case.
On March 13, 1951, he filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution in the same case, signing as: “TAN TEK SY / By (Sgd.) FELIX P. DAVID, c/o Atty. Felix P. David, Corner Dagupan and Azcarraga St., Filipinas Saw Mill & Construction, Manila.”
David did not present himself as a lawyer but as an "agent" of Tan Tek Sy.

On September 25, 1950, David filed a motion for demolition of the defendants’ houses, identifying himself as counsel for the plaintiff.
On October 10, 1950, he moved for authorization for the Sheriff of Manila to pay certain amounts collected from defendants.
On November 13, 1950, he filed a motion again for demolition of said houses.
Receipts evidencing payments to David from various defendants ranged from February 12, 1950, to December 7, 1950, with David acting as counsel for the plaintiff Malayan Saw Mill, Inc.

David asserted he had advised his client in the Tan Tek Sy case to employ another counsel to prepare pleadings due to his suspension.
When time was running short and the client could not personally file, David prepared and filed the pleadings at the client’s request, signing as “for and in behalf of the appellee,” not disclosing himself as counsel to avoid showing he was practicing.
David claimed he did not intend to disregard the suspension but acted in good faith.
He argued that his acts in Malayan Saw Mill case were done in good faith to collect his fees, not to contravene the suspension order.
David also cited a single appearance on March 2, 1950, in another case (Juan de la Torre vs. Philippine Trust Co.), claiming it was a favor to his brother-in-law and without fee.

The Court found David’s conduct unjustified—he should have ceased representation and advised his client to retain other counsel.
Articles of the Rules of Court (Art. 31 Rule 127) were violated in presenting pleadings as “for and in behalf of” the client without proper authority as a practicing lawyer.
Receipt of fees and filing of motions in litigations during suspension showed deliberate and intentional disregard of the Court’s suspension.
Soliciting fees directly or through court actions was prohibited when under suspension.
The Court equated acting covertly as an agent while effectively practicing law to a greater degree of culpability.

Whether Felix P. David violated the order of suspension by exercising law practice during the suspension period.
Whether David’s manner of representing his client as “for and in behalf of” but not expressly as lawyer was lawful during suspension.
Whether David’s receipt of fees from litigants during suspension was permissible.
Appropriate sanction for David’s violation of the suspension order.