Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 947 views

    5 PAFLU-vs-BINALBAGAN

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    This document summarizes a court case from 1971 regarding whether a non-lawyer, Quintin Muning, could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The Court of Industrial Relations had previously ordered back wages be paid to two complainants and awarded 25% of the back wages in fees, with 10% going to Muning. However, Muning was not a lawyer. The court held that only lawyers can establish attorney-client relationships and recover attorney's fees under the Rules of Court. Allowing non-lawyers to recover fees would violate legal ethics and confuse the public about who they could consult for legal assistance. It could also undermine the regulation of the legal profession.

    Copyright:

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

    5 PAFLU-vs-BINALBAGAN

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    947 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case from 1971 regarding whether a non-lawyer, Quintin Muning, could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The Court of Industrial Relations had previously ordered back wages be paid to two complainants and awarded 25% of the back wages in fees, with 10% going to Muning. However, Muning was not a lawyer. The court held that only lawyers can establish attorney-client relationships and recover attorney's fees under the Rules of Court. Allowing non-lawyers to recover fees would violate legal ethics and confuse the public about who they could consult for legal assistance. It could also undermine the regulation of the legal profession.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case from 1971 regarding whether a non-lawyer, Quintin Muning, could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The Court of Industrial Relations had previously ordered back wages be paid to two complainants and awarded 25% of the back wages in fees, with 10% going to Muning. However, Muning was not a lawyer. The court held that only lawyers can establish attorney-client relationships and recover attorney's fees under the Rules of Court. Allowing non-lawyers to recover fees would violate legal ethics and confuse the public about who they could consult for legal assistance. It could also undermine the regulation of the legal profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    947 views1 page

    5 PAFLU-vs-BINALBAGAN

    Uploaded by

    Danielle
    This document summarizes a court case from 1971 regarding whether a non-lawyer, Quintin Muning, could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The Court of Industrial Relations had previously ordered back wages be paid to two complainants and awarded 25% of the back wages in fees, with 10% going to Muning. However, Muning was not a lawyer. The court held that only lawyers can establish attorney-client relationships and recover attorney's fees under the Rules of Court. Allowing non-lawyers to recover fees would violate legal ethics and confuse the public about who they could consult for legal assistance. It could also undermine the regulation of the legal profession.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    L-23959 November 29, 1971


    PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO
    TENAZAS 
    vs.
    BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN
    MUNING

    FACTS:
    On March 29, 1961, the Court of Industrial Relations ordered the reinstatement with back
    wages of complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Complainants Entila and Tenazas, on
    December 3, 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for
    25% of their back wages, and, on the same day, Quintin Muning filed a "Petition for Award of Services
    Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the back wages. Muning's petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid &
    Associates on the ground that he is not a lawyer.

    On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the back wages as
    compensation for professional services rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:

    Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates ............................................. 10%


    Quintin Muning ......................................................................... 10%
    Atty. Atanacio Pacis ................................................................. 5%

    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.

    ISSUE: May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered? NO
    HELD:

    Section 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, providing —

    Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. — An attorney shall be


    entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for
    his services, ...

    Since respondent Muning is not a lawyer, he cannot establish an attorney-client


    relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore,
    recover attorney's fees. Certainly public policy demands that legal work in representation of
    parties litigant should been trusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and who
    are sworn to observe the rules and the ethics of the profession, as well as being subject
    to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of courts, clients and the public.
    The ethics of the legal profession should not be violated; that acting as an attorney without
    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 unlawful 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 of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact that
    non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures.

    You might also like