13.

PAFLU vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co.

G.R. No. L-23959, November 29, 1979

I. Facts:

Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of Entila and Tenazas filed a notice of
attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. Entila and Tenazas
filed manifestation indicating their non-objection to an award of attorney's
fees for 25% of their backwages

Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services Rendered"

equivalent to 20% of the backwages. However this was opposed by Cipriano
Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.

The Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the backwages as

compensation for professional services rendered in the case, apportioned as
follows:

i. Cipriano 10%

ii. Quintin Muning 10%

iii. Atanacio Pacis 5%

II. Issue:

May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered?

III. Ruling:

Lawyer-client relationship is only possible if one is a lawyer. Since

respondent Muning is not one, he cannot establish an attorney-client
relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and
he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees.

Public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties litigant

should be entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications, for the
ethics of the profession and for the protection of courts, clients and the
public.
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be
violated:

Acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court, which is

punishable by fine or imprisonment or both,

Law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act
done in violation of law.

If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless

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.
 14.
Five J Taxi vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 111474

I. Facts:

Petitioners Five J Taxi and/or Juan S. Armamento filed this special civil action
for certiorari to annul the decision of respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) ordering petitioners to pay private respondents Domingo
Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon their accumulated deposits and car wash
payments, plus interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of promulgation
of judgment to the date of actual payment, and 10% of the total amount as and
for attorney's fees.

Private respondents Domingo Maldigan and Gilberto Sabsalon were hired by

the petitioners as taxi drivers and, as such, they worked for 4 days weekly on a
24-hour shifting schedule. Aside from the daily "boundary" of P700.00 for air-
conditioned taxi or P450.00 for non-air-conditioned taxi, they were also
required to pay P20.00 for car washing, and to further make a P15.00 deposit
to answer for any deficiency in their "boundary," for every actual working day.

In less than 4 months after Maldigan was hired as an extra driver by the
petitioners, he already failed to report for work for unknown reasons. Later,
petitioners learned that he was working for "Mine of Gold" Taxi Company. With
respect to Sabsalon, while driving a taxicab of petitioners on September 6,
1983, he was held up by his armed passenger who took all his money and
thereafter stabbed him. He was hospitalized and after his discharge, he went to
his home province to recuperate.

In January 1987, Sabsalon was re-admitted by petitioners as a taxi driver

under the same terms and conditions as when he was first employed, but his
working schedule was made on an "alternative basis," that is, he drove only
every other day. However, on several occasions, he failed to report for work
during his schedule.

On September 22, 1991, Sabsalon failed to remit his "boundary" of P700.00 for
the previous day. Also, he abandoned his taxicab in Makati without fuel refill
worth P300.00. Despite repeated requests of petitioners for him to report for
work, he adamantly refused. Afterwards it was revealed that he was driving a
taxi for "Bulaklak Company."
Sometime in 1989, Maldigan requested petitioners for the reimbursement of his
daily cash deposits for 2 years, but herein petitioners told him that not a single
centavo was left of his deposits as these were not even enough to cover the
amount spent for the repairs of the taxi he was driving. This was allegedly the
practice adopted by petitioners to recoup the expenses incurred in the repair of
their taxicab units. When Maldigan insisted on the refund of his deposit,
petitioners terminated his services. Sabsalon, on his part, claimed that his
termination from employment was effected when he refused to pay for the
washing of his taxi seat covers.

Guillermo H. Pulia, a non-lawyer, was the private respondents’ authorized

representative.

II. Issue

Whether or not the private respondents’ authorized representative is entitled for

attorney’s fees for the services rendered?

III. Ruling

No. Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3 of Presidential

Decree No. 1691, states that non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any
labor arbiter only (1) if they represent themselves, or (2) if they represent their
organization or the members thereof. While it may be true that Guillermo H.
Pulia was the authorized representative of private respondents, he was a non-
lawyer who did not fall in either of the foregoing categories. Hence, by clear
mandate of the law, he is not entitled to attorney's fees.

Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client a reasonable compensation for his services necessarily
imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition for the
recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot exist unless the
client's representative is a lawyer.
 15.
Kanlaon Construction vs NLRC
G.R. No. 126625, September 18, 1997

I. Facts:

Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the construction business

nationwide with principal office at No. 11 Yakan St., La Vista Subdivision,
Quezon City. In 1988, petitioner was contracted by the National Steel
Corporation to construct residential houses for its plant employees in
Steeltown, Sta. Elena, Iligan City. Private respondents were hired by petitioner
as laborers in the project and worked under the supervision of Engineers
Paulino Estacio and Mario Dulatre. In 1989, the project neared its completion
and petitioner started terminating the services of private respondents and its
other employees.

In 1990, private respondents filed separate complaints against petitioner before

Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, Iligan City. Numbering forty-one (41) in
all, they claimed that petitioner paid them wages below the minimum and
sought payment of their salary differentials and thirteenth-month pay.
Engineers Estacio and Dulatre were named co-respondents.

The preliminary conferences before the labor arbiters were attended by

Engineers Estacio and Dulatre and private respondents. At the conference of
June 11, 1990 before Arbiter Siao, Engineer Estacio admitted petitioner’s
liability to private respondents and agreed to pay their wage differentials and
thirteenth-month pay on June 19, 1990. As a result of this agreement,
Engineer Estacio allegedly waived petitioner’s right to file its position paper.
Private respondents declared that they, too, were dispensing with their position
papers and were adopting their complaints as their position paper.

Extension was denied by the LA Siao and ordered the employer company to pay
the employees.

Petitioner appealed to respondent National Labor Relations Commission. It

alleged that it was denied due process and that Engineers Estacio and Dulatre
had no authority to represent and bind petitioner.

II. Issue:
Whether or not Engineer Estacio was an agent and authorized representative of
petitioner.

III. Ruling

No. The general rule is that only lawyers are allowed to appear before the labor
arbiter and respondent Commission in cases before them. The Labor Code and
the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, nonetheless, lists three (3) exceptions
to the rule, viz:

Sec. 6. Appearances. — . . . .

A non-lawyer may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only if:
(a) he represents himself as party to the case;
(b) he represents the organization or its members, provided that he shall be
made to present written proof that he is properly authorized; or
(c) he is a duly-accredited member of any legal aid office duly recognized by the
Department of Justice or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in cases referred
thereto by the latter. . . . 10

A non-lawyer may appear before the labor arbiters and the NLRC only if: (a) he
represents himself as a party to the case; (b) he represents an organization or
its members, with written authorization from them: or (c) he is a duly-
accredited member of any legal aid office duly recognized by the Department of
Justice or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in cases referred to by the
latter.

Engineers Estacio and Dulatre were not lawyers. Neither were they duly-
accredited members of a legal aid office. Their appearance before the labor
arbiters in their capacity as parties to the cases was authorized under the first
exception to the rule. However, their appearance on behalf of petitioner
required written proof of authorization. It was incumbent upon the arbiters to
ascertain this authority especially since both engineers were named co-
respondents in the cases before the arbiters. Absent this authority, whatever
statements and declarations Engineer Estacio made before the arbiters could
not bind petitioner.