G.R. No. L-23959. November 29, 1971.
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO TENAZAS, petitioners, vs. BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN MUNING, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners PAFLU and its members, Enrique Entila and Victoriano Tenazas, filed an unfair labor practice case (Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo) against Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) decided in favor of the complainants, ordering the reinstatement with back wages of Entila and Tenazas. After the decision became final, the lawyers of record, Cipriano Cid & Associates and Atty. Atanacio Pacis, filed notices of attorney’s lien. The complainants manifested no objection to an award of attorney’s fees equivalent to 25% of the back wages.
Subsequently, respondent Quintin Muning, who had appeared for the complainants during some hearings but was not a licensed lawyer, filed a “Petition for the Award of Services Rendered” claiming 20% of the back wages as compensation. This was opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates on the ground that Muning was not a lawyer. Nonetheless, the CIR, in its order dated May 12, 1964, awarded 25% of the back wages as professional fees, apportioning 10% to Cipriano Cid & Associates, 10% to Quintin Muning, and 5% to Atty. Atanacio Pacis. PAFLU, Entila, and Tenazas filed the present petition to annul the award to the non-lawyer Muning.

ISSUE

May a non-lawyer who represented a party before the Court of Industrial Relations recover attorney’s fees for such representation?

RULING

No, a non-lawyer cannot recover attorney’s fees for legal representation. The Supreme Court set aside the CIR’s award of 10% attorney’s fees to respondent Quintin Muning. The Court, citing Amalgamated Laborers’ Association vs. Court of Industrial Relations, ruled that allowing a non-lawyer to share in attorney’s fees violates Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is contrary to public policy. While Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875 (the Industrial Peace Act) permits parties in CIR proceedings to appear without legal counsel, it does not entitle a non-lawyer representative to compensation. The provision explicitly tasks the Court or Hearing Officer with examining witnesses and assisting in evidence presentation, implying that legal representation should ideally be entrusted to members of the bar.
The recovery of attorney’s fees under Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court presupposes an attorney-client relationship, which can only exist with a duly admitted lawyer. Public policy mandates that legal representation be confined to individuals with tested qualifications, sworn to observe professional ethics, and subject to judicial disciplinary control. The prevailing rule in American jurisdictions, which denies compensation for legal services to unlicensed individuals, was deemed persuasive. The Court emphasized that allowing such recovery would violate legal ethics, potentially sanction contempt of court (as unauthorized practice of law is punishable), and create public confusion. The union PAFLU was held to have standing to appeal the award as an aggrieved party acting for its members’ welfare. The orders were affirmed in all other respects.