Case Summary (G.R. No. 231145)
Suspension Order and Admission
Felix P. David was officially suspended for five years, effective from November 9, 1949, due to misconduct in the practice of law. He acknowledged this suspension in a written report dated March 17, 1951. However, evidence demonstrates that he continued practicing law throughout the suspension period. The Court had expressly prohibited him from engaging in any legal practice during this time.
Unauthorized Legal Representation in Appeal Case
David filed a pleading (Exhibit J) on February 28, 1950, in the appellate cause Tan Tek Sy vs. Maliwanag not as the lawyer of Tan Tek Sy but stating that he acted “for and in behalf of” his client. Subsequent motions and pleadings were similarly submitted, signed as being on behalf of Tan Tek Sy with his name appended. Although he claimed he only acted as an agent due to the inability of his client to sign documents, the Court found his presentation tantamount to practicing law, which was unauthorized given his suspension.
Unauthorized Legal Actions in Civil Case
In a civil case entitled Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. vs. Tolentino, David presented motions for demolition orders and authorization for Sheriff payments. He signed pleadings as the attorney of the plaintiff and issued multiple receipts for payments made by defendants for legal fees attributed to his professional services. These receipts span from February 12, 1950, to December 7, 1950. His conduct clearly indicated the exercise of his profession amid his suspension.
Defense and Court’s Rejection
David argued that his acts were done in good faith and without intending to violate the suspension order. He claimed he drafted pleadings at the client's request, expecting the client to sign them, and that his signatures were merely as an agent encouraging client representation. He further insisted he did not identify himself explicitly as the lawyer but only “for and in behalf” of the appellee. The Court rejected these defenses, emphasizing the explicit prohibition on suspended lawyers representing clients, whether as attorneys or agents, in courts other than justices of the peace.
Legal Basis for Prohibition and Obligations of Suspended Lawyer
The Court invoked Article 31 of Rule 127 of the Rules of Court which provides that appearances in courts must be made personally by the litigant or through an authorized member of the bar in good standing. A suspended lawyer is not authorized to appear for a party in court, not even as an agent or representative. The obligation is on the suspended lawyer to advise clients to seek other counsel and to respect the Supreme Court’s suspension order.
On Charging and Collection of Legal Fees
David’s attempt to justify his motions and receipt issuance on the ground of securing payment of fees was rejected. The Court held that compliance with the order of suspension supersedes any monetary interest. He could have pursued collection of fees through lawful means without engaging in illegal practice. Prioritizing fee collection by violating the suspension was deemed bad faith.
Other Instances of Practice Despite Suspension
David admitted appearing in another case upon request but claimed no fees were collected. Nevertheless, this did not excuse his other violations. The Court clarified that acts such as filing pleadings, motions, executing legal documents, and receiving fees are definitive exercises of the legal profession. His actions confirmed the intentional disregard of the suspension.
Nature of Acts Constituting Practice of Law
Preparing and submitting pleadings, filing motions especially those demanding execution of judgments, and receiving p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 231145)
Case Background and Facts
- Felix P. David was suspended from the practice of law for five years starting November 9, 1949, due to malpractice in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer, as decided in Administrative Case No. 35.
- Despite his suspension, David continued to practice law during the prohibited period from November 9, 1949, until November 8, 1954.
- On February 28, 1950, David submitted a pleading ("Exhibit J") in the case CA G. R. No. 4792-R, Tan Tek Sy vs. Maliwanag, purportedly "for and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy."
- Notification of the decision confirming the ruling of the Court of First Instance in the same case was sent to David by certified mail on January 26, 1951 ("Exhibit G").
- On March 13, 1951, David filed a motion requesting an order of execution in the same court, signing the motion as "TAN TEK SI By (Sgd.) FELIX P. DAVID," indicating his representation role but not in the usual capacity as an attorney.
- In Civil Case No. 3658, Malayan Saw Mill, Inc. vs. Tolentino, David filed multiple motions (Exhibits A, B, and C) between September and November 1950, seeking orders such as demolition of the defendants’ houses and authorizing the sheriff to disburse collected amounts.
- David signed these filings as the attorney for the plaintiff and received payments from various defendants as shown by receipts dated from February 12, 1950, through December 7, 1950 (Exhibits B to B-34).
Defense and Explanation by Felix P. David
- David contended that he began representing Tan Tek Sy as early as 1948 at the Manila Municipal Court.
- Upon suspension, he advised his client to secure another lawyer to prepare the necessary pleadings for the Court of Appeals.
- When only two or three days remained before the filing deadline and no other counsel was found, David prepared and submitted the pleadings at his client’s request.
- He claimed to have signed the pleadings “for and in behalf of the appellee” in good faith, intending that the client would later sign, but because the client was out of town (Dagupan) and time was short, he signed to avoid default.
- David maintained that he did not identify himself as the attorney and thus did not intend to contravene his suspen