This document summarizes three labor law cases from the Philippines:
1) The first case involved whether a non-lawyer could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The court ruled that only licensed lawyers can establish attorney-client relationships and recover fees.
2) The second case addressed whether a non-lawyer representative of employees was entitled to attorney's fees. The court found that only lawyers can represent parties under the labor code.
3) The third case examined if an engineer had authority to represent a construction company in labor arbitration. The court determined engineers were not lawyers and no proof of representation was provided, so they lacked authority to bind the company.
This document summarizes three labor law cases from the Philippines:
1) The first case involved whether a non-lawyer could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The court ruled that only licensed lawyers can establish attorney-client relationships and recover fees.
2) The second case addressed whether a non-lawyer representative of employees was entitled to attorney's fees. The court found that only lawyers can represent parties under the labor code.
3) The third case examined if an engineer had authority to represent a construction company in labor arbitration. The court determined engineers were not lawyers and no proof of representation was provided, so they lacked authority to bind the company.
This document summarizes three labor law cases from the Philippines:
1) The first case involved whether a non-lawyer could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The court ruled that only licensed lawyers can establish attorney-client relationships and recover fees.
2) The second case addressed whether a non-lawyer representative of employees was entitled to attorney's fees. The court found that only lawyers can represent parties under the labor code.
3) The third case examined if an engineer had authority to represent a construction company in labor arbitration. The court determined engineers were not lawyers and no proof of representation was provided, so they lacked authority to bind the company.
This document summarizes three labor law cases from the Philippines:
1) The first case involved whether a non-lawyer could recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered. The court ruled that only licensed lawyers can establish attorney-client relationships and recover fees.
2) The second case addressed whether a non-lawyer representative of employees was entitled to attorney's fees. The court found that only lawyers can represent parties under the labor code.
3) The third case examined if an engineer had authority to represent a construction company in labor arbitration. The court determined engineers were not lawyers and no proof of representation was provided, so they lacked authority to bind the company.
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.
The 5 Elements of the Highly Effective Debt Collector: How to Become a Top Performing Debt Collector in Less Than 30 Days!!! the Powerful Training System for Developing Efficient, Effective & Top Performing Debt Collectors
The 5 Elements of the Highly Effective Debt Collector: How to Become a Top Performing Debt Collector in Less Than 30 Days!!! the Powerful Training System for Developing Efficient, Effective & Top Performing Debt Collectors
