Case Digest

In re: David 93 Phil 461

Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer for
a period of five years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant admits this suspension in
`his written report filed on March 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise the profession within
the period of suspension, November 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954.
On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer but
as an agent. (For and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek, subsequently
Atty Felix David filed a motion for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called Malayan
Saw Mill, Inc vs Tolentino, defendant filed a brief for an order to demolish homes.
In order - says the appeal - 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 Identified Sy Even
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.
ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law.
HELD: Yes. 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.
Source : http://legalethix.blogspot.com/2011/11/in-re-david-93-phil-461.html#!/2011/11/inre-david-93-phil-461.html