Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paflu vs. Binalbagan
Paflu vs. Binalbagan
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered? This is the issue presented in
this petition for review of an order, dated 12 May 1964, and the en banc resolution, dated 8
December 1964, of the Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo, granting
respondent Quintin Muning a non-lawyer, attorney's fees for professional services in the said case.
The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al.
vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a
decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique
Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18 October 1963, Cipriano Cid &
Associates, counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent
to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar
notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas on 3 December 1963, filed a
manifestation indicating their non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their
backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services
Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Munings petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid &
Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.
The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates
through Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings were held in Bacolod City and appearances made in
behalf of the complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin
Muning.
On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation
for professional services rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer according to the order, is sought to be
voided in the present petition.
Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss the present petition on the ground of late filing
but his motion was overruled on 20 January 1965. He asked for reconsideration, but, considering
1
that the motion contained averments that go into the merits of the case, this Court admitted and
considered the motion for reconsideration for all purposes as respondent's answer to the petitioner
for review. The case was considered submitted for decision without respondent's brief.
2 3
Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle enunciated in Amalgamated Laborers' Association, et
al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-23467, 27 March 1968, that an agreement providing for
4
the division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to share in said fees
with lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified. An
award by a court of attorney's fees is no less immoral in the absence of a contract, as in the present
case.
In the proceeding before the Court or Hearing Examiner thereof, the parties shall not
be required to be represented by legal counsel ...
is no justification for a ruling, that the person representing the party-litigant in the Court of Industrial
Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to attorney's fees: for the same section adds that —
it shall be the duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to examine and
cross examine witnesses on behalf of the parties and to assist in the orderly
presentation of evidence.
thus making it clear that the representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly qualified
members of the bar.
The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or defend in the said court on
behalf of a party-litigant does not by itself entitle the representative to compensation for such
representation. For Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, providing —
But in practically all jurisdictions statutes have now been enacted prohibiting persons
not licensed or admitted to the bar from practising law, and under statutes of this
kind, the great weight of authority is to the effect that compensation for legal services
cannot be recovered by one who has not been admitted to practice before the court
or in the jurisdiction the services were rendered. 5
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated; that acting as an
7
attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or
both, and the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done in
8
violation of law; and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless
9
confusion as to whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition,
aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures. 10
The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-lawyer may not be awarded attorney's fees
should suffice to refute the possible argument that appearances by non-lawyers before the Court of
Industrial Relations should be excepted on the ground that said court is a court of special
jurisdiction; such special jurisdiction does not weigh the aforesaid reasons and cannot justify an
exception.
The other issue in this case is whether or not a union may appeal an award of attorney's fees which
are deductible from the backpay of some of its members. This issue arose because it was the union
PAFLU, alone, that moved for an extension of time to file the present petition for review; union
members Entila and Tenazas did not ask for extension but they were included as petitioners in the
present petition that was subsequently filed, it being contended that, as to them (Entila and
Tenazas), their inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners was belated.
We hold that a union or legitimate labor organization may appeal an award of attorney's fees which
are deductible from the backpay of its members because such union or labor organization is
permitted to institute an action in the industrial court, on behalf of its members; and the union was
12
organized "for the promotion of the emloyees' moral, social and economic well-being"; hence, if an
13
award is disadvantageous to its members, the union may prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved
party, under Section 6, Republic Act 875, which provides:
since more often than not the individual unionist is not in a position to bear the financial burden of
litigations.
Petitioners allege that respondent Muning is engaged in the habitual practice of law before the Court
of Industrial Relations, and many of them like him who are not licensed to practice, registering their
appearances as "representatives" and appearing daily before the said court. If true, this is a serious
situation demanding corrective action that respondent court should actively pursue and enforce by
positive action to that purpose. But since this matter was not brought in issue before the court a quo,
it may not be taken up in the present case. Petitioners, however, may file proper action against the
persons alleged to be illegally engaged in the practice of law.
WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set aside insofar as they awarded 10% of the
backwages as attorney's fees for respondent Quintin Muning. Said orders are affirmed in all other
respects. Costs against respondent Muning.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and
Makasiar, JJ. concur.
Footnotes
4 22 SCRA, 1266.
6 7 C.J.S 1022.
7 See also, Foundation Finance Co. vs. Robins, 153 So. 833 179 La. 259, reversing
(App) 149 So. 166.
11 4 A.L.R. 1089.
PHILIPPINE
ASSOCIATIO
N OF FREE
LABOR
UNIONS
(PAFLU),ENR
IQUE
,
ENTILA & VICTORIANOTENEZA
petitioners
,
vs.
BINALBANGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY,COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS & QUINTINMUNING
,
respondents
. The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo, entitled,
"PAFLU,et al, vs. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial
Relationsrendered a decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the reinstatement with backwages
ofcomplainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final On 18
October1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a
noticeof attorney's hen equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November 1963,
Atty.Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a reasonable amount. Complainants Entila
andTenazas, on 3 December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to an
award ofattorney's fees for 25% of their backwages, and, on the same day, Quintin Muning filed
a"Petition for Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages.
Muning's petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates on the ground that he is not a
lawyer. The award of 10% to Quintin Muning, who is not a lawyer according to the order, is
sought to bevoided in the present petition. Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle
enunciated in Amalgamated Laborers'Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al.,
L-23467, 27 March 1968, that anagreement providing for the division of attorney's fees, whereby
a non-lawyer union president isallowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is condemned by
Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and isimmoral and cannot be justified. An award by a court of
attorney's fees is no less immoral in theabsence of a contract, as in the present case. The reasons
are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated; that acting as anattorney without
authority constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by fine orimprisonment or both, and
the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of anunlawful act or an act done in
violation of law; and that if fees were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in
hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case ofnecessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic
condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers arenot amenable to disciplinary measures.The
weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-lawyer may not be awarded attorney'sfees
should suffice to refute the possible argument that appearances by non-lawyers before theCourt
of Industrial Relations should be excepted on the ground that said court is a court ofspecial
jurisdiction; such special jurisdiction does not outweigh the aforesaid reasons and cannot justify
an exception. WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set aside insofar as they
awarded 10% of the backwages as attorney's fees for respondent Quintin Muning. Said orders are
affirmed in all otherrespects. Costs against respondent Muning