PAFLU VS BINALBAGAN

A decision of the Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled , PAFLU et al vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et al.
awas rendered on March 29, 1961. Reinstatement with back wages was ordered to the complainants
Entila and Tenazas. The complainants counsel was Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio
Pacis. The decision became final. On October 18, 1963, the Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record
filed a notice of attorneys lien equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On November 1963, Atty. Pacis
also filed a similar notice for a reasonable amount. The complainants then subsequently filed their
manifestation indicating their non-objection to the award of an attorneys fees for 25% of their
backwages. Thereafter, Quentin Muning filed a Petition for the Award of Services Rendered
equivalent to 20% of the backwages, but it was opposed by Cipriano Cid on the ground that he is not a
lawyer.

It was found out the the charge was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Pacis. All hearungs
were held in Bacolod City and appearance made in behalf of the complaiants were at first by Atty. Pacis
and subsequently by the Respondent Muning.

On May 12, 1964 the Court of Industrial Relations awareded a total of 25% of the backwages as
compensation for the professional services rendred in the case: 10% for the Attys. Cipriano Cid, 10% for
the respondent, and 5% for Atty. Pacis.

Munings award who is not a lawyer held in question.

Issue: WON a non-lawyer may recover Attys fees for legal services rendered.

Held:

No. A non-lawyer may not recover Attys fees for legal services rendered.

According to Amalgamated Laborers Ass. Vs. CIR, an agreement providing for the division of attys 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. Moreover, according to Section 5 b of
RA 875, representation of legal counsel shall not be required in the proceedings before the Court of
Hearing Examiners. Thus , 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. Representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly qualified members of the bar. The
permission for a non-lawyer to represent or appear in the said court does not entitle him for
compensation. The ethics or the legal profession should not be violated. Therefore, no one is entitled to
recover compensation for services as an attorney at law unless he has been duly admitted to practice..
and is an attorney in good standing.
Respondent Mining is not a lawyer; cannot establish an attorney-client relationship. Wherefore, cannot
recover attorneys fees.