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:
The above-named petitioners were complainants in an unfair labor practice
(ULP) case before the CIR. The CIR ordered the reinstatement with
backwages of complainants Entila and Tenazas. Cipriano Cid & Associates,
counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien
equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for
the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages.
Munings petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates 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. Appearances made in behalf of the
complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent
Quintin Muning. The CIR awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation
for professional services rendered in the case.
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?
Held:
NO. An agreement providing for the division of attorney's fees, whereby a
non-lawyer 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.
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.
Certainly public policy demands that legal work in representation of parties
litigant should be entrusted 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.
No one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an attorney at law
unless ha has been duly admitted to pracitce and is an attorney in good
standing at the time.
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated;
that acting as an attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court, which is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, 8 and the law will not assist a person to
reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done in violation of law; 9 and that 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.
7

A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ

June 20, 2012
JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ANGELINA P. CIOCON, MARIVIT P. CIOCONHERNANDEZ, and REMBERTO C. KARAAN, SR., Complainants,
vs.
JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, General
Santos City, Respondent.
Facts:
Juvy P. Ciocon-Reer, Angelina P. Ciocon, Marivit P. Ciocon-Hernandez, and
Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. (complainants) filed an administrative complaint
against Judge Antonio C. Lubao (Judge Lubao) of the Regional Trial Court
The OCA noted that Karaan, through the use of intemperate and slanderous
language, continually attributed all sorts of malicious motives and nefarious
schemes to Judge Lubao regarding the conduct of his official function but
failed to substantiate his allegations. The OCA further noted that this case is
just one of the many cases Karaan filed against various judges in other courts
where the same pattern of accusations could be observed.
The OCA noted Karaans modus operandi of offering free paralegal advice
and then making the parties execute a special power of attorney that would
make him an agent of the litigants and would allow him to file suits, pleadings
and motions with himself as one of the plaintiffs acting on behalf of his

"clients." The OCA noted that Karaans services, on behalf of the

underprivileged he claimed to be helping, fall within the practice of law.
Issue:
WON Karaan is engaged in unauthorized practice of law.
Held:
Yes. In Cayetano v. Monsod,3 the Court ruled that "practice of law" means
any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of
law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal
profession.4 Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which
requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. 5 Here, the OCA was able to
establish the pattern in Karaans unauthorized practice of law. He would
require the parties to execute a special power of attorney in his favor to allow
him to join them as one of the plaintiffs as their attorney-in-fact. Then, he
would file the necessary complaint and other pleadings "acting for and in his
own behalf and as attorney-in-fact, agent or representative" of the parties.
The fact that Karaan did not indicate in the pleadings that he was a member
of the Bar, or any PTR, Attorneys Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number does
not detract from the fact that, by his actions, he was actually engaged in the
practice of law.
Under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a person
"[a]ssuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such
without authority," is liable for indirect contempt of court. Under Section 7 of
the same rules, a respondent adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed
against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank "may be
punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or both." If a respondent is adjudged guilty of
contempt committed against a lower court, he "may be punished by a fine not
exceeding five thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1)
month, or both.

A.M. No. 2266 October 27, 1983

HERMINIO R. NORIEGA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. EMMANUEL R. SISON, respondent.

Facts:
Complainant Noriega alleges that respondent Sison employee of the SEC as
a Hearing Officer and as such, "is mandated to observe strictly the civil
service rules and regulations, more particularly the prohibition of government
employees to practice their professions and that respondent falsified his
Identity to be one "Atty. Manuel Sison "at the times that he will handle private
cases in representing one Juan Sacquing.
Respondent presented the written authorization by Associate Commissioner
of the SEC for him to appear for Sacquing, a close family friend, alleges that
he never held himself out to the public as a practicing lawyer and that he hat
he never represented himself deliberately and intentionally as "Atty. Manuel
Sison.
Issue:
WON Atty. Sision is engegaed in unauthorized practice of law and should be
disbarred.
Held:
No.
The purpose of disbarment, therefore, is not meant as a punishment
depriving him of a source of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this function
should be competent, honorable and reliable in order that the courts and
clients may rightly repose confidence in them. 3
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant,
and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the
respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof.
Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a
member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant
evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.
Examining the facts of this case, We hold that the allegations in the complaint
do not warrant disbarment of the respondent. There is no evidence that the
respondent has committed an act constituting deceit, immoral conduct,
violation of his oath as a lawyer, wilful disobedience of any lawful order of the

court, or corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney to a part to a case

without attorney to do so.

Beltran Jr. vs. Abad, 132 SCRA 453

(BM 139)
31
JUL
.date
FACTS:
Mr. Elmo S. Abad was a successful examinee of the 1978 bar examinations. His
subsequent practice of law was questioned and complained by the President of
Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc. Respondent explained that:

He had already paid for the Bar Admission Fee;

He was notified of the oath-taking by the Supreme Court and signed the
Lawyers Oath by one clerk in the Office of the Bar Confidante;

He participated Annual General Meeting of IBP Quezon City, and paid his
statement dues and was included as a voting member for officers and directors
also conferred to him a certificate of Membership in Good Standing from IBP QC
Chapter;

The Supreme Court never issued any order in the striking of his name in the
roll of attorneys, and paid his dues and PTR;
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of contempt of court.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was sentenced fine and imprisonment for twenty five (25) days.
RATIO:
Respondent should know that the circumstances which he narrated do not
constitute his admission to the Philippine Bar and the right (or privilege) to practice
law thereafter. He should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer
still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court
and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
He was found in violation of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing x x x:
xxx
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such
without authority;
xxx

In 1914, a lawyer named Salvador Laguda filed a petition

before the Iloilo CFI recommending that he is appointing
Cesareo
Durban
as
his
procurador
judicial
(legal
representative). The judge of the CFI approved the petition. The
authority granted to Durban, a non-lawyer, is limited to the
following: appear in matters signed and presented by Laguda
with his own signature and when the latter should send the
said Durban to attend to such matters; that the said Durban
should have no authority to make contracts to represent any
person in any justice court; that all contracts and appearances
should be made by Laguda, and that the latter could send
Durban to represent him in courts; and finally that said Durban
should not collect any sum for any service.
In one instance however, Durban agreed to represent one
Eustaquia Montage in litigating her claim over a P20.00 worth
parcel of land. Durban charged for appearance fees; he even
won the case. Montage paid Durban a total of P50.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not Durban engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.
HELD: Yes. Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
amended by Act No. 1919, says:
No person not duly authorized to practice law may engage in
the occupation of appearing for or defending other persons in
justice of the peace courts without being first authorized for
that purpose by the judge of the Court of First Instance.
Durban acted beyond the authority granted him; he was
likewise in violation of the provision above.
Public Officials and Public of Law
Ramos vs. rada