Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 193 views

    PAFLU v. Binalbagan

    Uploaded by

    Precious
    The Supreme Court ruled that a non-lawyer may not recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The case involved Quintin Muning, a non-lawyer, seeking 20% of back wages as compensation for representing complainants in a labor case. The Court found that Section 24 of the Rules of Court requires an attorney-client relationship for the recovery of fees, and this cannot exist unless the representative is a lawyer. Since Muning was not a lawyer, he could not establish such a relationship or recover fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PAFLU v. Binalbagan

    Uploaded by

    Precious
    193 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a non-lawyer may not recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The case involved Quintin Muning, a non-lawyer, seeking 20% of back wages as compensation for representing complainants in a labor case. The Court found that Section 24 of the Rules of Court requires an attorney-client relationship for the recovery of fees, and this cannot exist unless the representative is a lawyer. Since Muning was not a lawyer, he could not establish such a relationship or recover fees.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a non-lawyer may not recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The case involved Quintin Muning, a non-lawyer, seeking 20% of back wages as compensation for representing complainants in a labor case. The Court found that Section 24 of the Rules of Court requires an attorney-client relationship for the recovery of fees, and this cannot exist unless the representative is a lawyer. Since Muning was not a lawyer, he could not establish such a relationship or recover fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    193 views2 pages

    PAFLU v. Binalbagan

    Uploaded by

    Precious
    The Supreme Court ruled that a non-lawyer may not recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The case involved Quintin Muning, a non-lawyer, seeking 20% of back wages as compensation for representing complainants in a labor case. The Court found that Section 24 of the Rules of Court requires an attorney-client relationship for the recovery of fees, and this cannot exist unless the representative is a lawyer. Since Muning was not a lawyer, he could not establish such a relationship or recover fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PAFLU v. Binalbagan, G.R. L-23959, November 29, 1971. Reyes, J.B.L.

    Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court imports the existence of attorney-client
    relationship as a condition for the recovery of attorney’s fee. Such relationship cannot
    exist unless the representative 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.

    FACTS
    In Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo titled, "PAFLU, et al, vs. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., et
    al.,” the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision ordering the reinstatement
    with backwages of complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision
    became final and executory. Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record for the
    winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's hen equivalent to 30% of the total
    backwages. Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a reasonable amount.
    Complainants Entila and Tenazas filed a manifestation indicating their nonobjection.
    Then, 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 records of case 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 Atty. Pacis and
    subsequently by Muning.
    The Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the backwaters as compensation
    where10% of such was awarded to Muning who is not a lawyer. In this petition, the 10% award
    given to Muning was sought to be voided.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not a non-lawyer may recover attorney’s fee for legal services rendered.
    (NO)

    RULING
    In Amalgamated Laborers' Association, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al.,
    it was stated that an agreement providing for 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.
    The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 provides that, "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. As Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court
    imports the existence of attorney-client relationship as a condition for the recovery
    of attorney’s fee. Such relationship cannot exist unless the representative 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.

    You might also like