NON-LAWYERS IN COURTS

PAAR V. BORROMEO, 79 PHIL 344, G.R. NO. L-1582, OCTOBER 10, 1947

Teofilo Paar is charged in Manila with treason before the People's Court, and prayed that
he be assisted in his defense by Andres R. Camasura who is not a member of the bar. The
People's Court denied the petition, hence, this action for mandamus.
Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 112 are as follows:

"SEC. 3. Duty of court to inform defendant of his right to have attorney. If the
defendant appears without attorney, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to
have attorney before being arraigned, and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney.
If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assign attorney de oficio to
defend him. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney.

"SEC. 4. Who may be appointed attorney 'de oficio.' The attorney so employed or
assigned must be a duly authorized member of the Bar. But in provinces where duly
authorized members of the bar are not available, the court may, in its discretion, admit or
assign a person, resident in the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to aid
the defendant in his defense, although the person so admitted or assigned be not a duly
authorized member of the Bar."

Sections 29 and 31 of Rule 127 read:

"SEC. 29. Attorneys for destitute litigants. 'A superior court may assign an attorney to
render professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it
appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services
of counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party.
It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required service, unless he is
excused there from by the court for sufficient cause shown.'

"SEC. 31. By whom litigation conducted. In the court of a justice of the peace a party
may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him
for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court a party may conduct his
litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal
or by a duly authorized member of the bar."

It is clear from these provisions that in Manila where there are many members of the bar,
defendants in the People's Court may be assisted only by members of the bar.

Petition denied, without costs.

NON-LAWYERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

ARTICLE 222. APPEARANCES AND FEES.

 Non-lawyers may appear before the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only: If they
represent themselves; or if they represent their organization or members thereof.

No attorney’s fees, negotiation fees or similar charges of any kind arising from any
collective bargaining agreement shall be imposed on any individual member of the contracting
union: Provided, However, that attorney’s fees may be charged against union funds in an amount
to be agreed upon by the parties. Any contract, agreement or arrangement of any sort to the
contrary shall be null and void. (As amended by Presidential Decree No. 1691, May 1, 1980)

FIVE J. TAXI V. NLRC, G.R. NO. 111474, AUGUST 22, 1994

SUMMARY:

Maldigan and Sabsalon were taxi drivers for Five J Taxi. Five J Taxi had in place a
boundary system where the driver had to pay not only the boundary fee to take out the taxi for
the day, but also a P20 car wash fee and a P15 deposit. Years later, after Maldigan and Sabsalon
had left the company, they sought to get the accumulated deposits – only to be told that, as per
company practice, the accumulated fees were to answer for the repair expenses of the taxi cabs
handled by the drivers. Maldigan and Sabsalon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The LA
dismissed the complaint, which decision was concurred in by the NLRC. HOWEVER, the
NLRC modified the decision of the LA by granting the refund of the deposit and the car wash
fee. On the question of the propriety of those awards, Five J Taxi elevated the case to the SC. The
SC affirmed the NLRC’s award of the deposit, but reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s holding that the
car wash fee was an industry practice, thus was not an illegal deduction in the contemplation of
the law.

FACTS:

 Domingo Maldigan (MALDIGAN) and Gilberto Sabsalon (SABSALON) were hired by

Five J Taxi as taxi drivers – driving four 24-hr shifts a week.
o Boundary System o P700 (airconditioned taxis) or P450 (non-airconditioned
taxis)
o P20 (car washing)
o P15 (deposit – to answer for any deficiency in the boundary for every actual
working day)
 Regarding Maldigan:
o 1987: Started working as a driver at Five J Taxi. (According to the company, he
was an extra driver in 1986.)
 4 mos. after we was hired, he failed to report for work for unknown
reasons – it turned out that Maldigan had started working for another
company, Mine of Gold Taxi.
o 1987-1990: Employed by Mine of Gold Taxi. (NOTE: This employments seems
to have been concurrent with his employment in Five J Taxi – else, Five J Taxi
would not have been able to terminate his employment later.)
 Sometime in 1989: Requested Five J Taxi for a reimbursement of his daily
cash deposits for 2 years.
  Five J Taxi informed him that not a single centavo was left – these had
been spent to cover repairs for his taxi cab unit.
 He was told that the application of the deposit to recoup repair expenses
was a practice adopted by Five J Taxi.
o 1990: When he insisted on getting the reimbursement, his employment was
terminated by Five J Taxi.
 Regarding Sabsalon:
o 1979: Started Working at Five J Taxi.
o 1984: Was held up by an armed passenger – he was stabbed and robbed.
 After getting discharged from the hospital, he went to the province to
recuperate.
o 1987: Was re-admitted as a taxi driver by Five J Taxi more than 3 years later. (On
several occasions, failed to report for work as scheduled.)
o 1991: Failed to remit the P700 boundary for the previous day AND abandoned his
taxi cab in Makati without fuel refill worth P300 – it turned out that he was
driving a taxi for Bulaklak Company.
 According to him, his employment was terminated when he refused to pay
for the washing of his seat covers.
 1991: Maldigan and Sabsalon filed a complaint against Five J Taxi for illegal dismissal
and illegal deductions.
 LA: DISMISSED the complaint – it held that the unreasonable delay was NOT consistent
with the natural reaction of a person who claimed to be unjustly treated.
 NLRC: CONCURRED in the findings of the LA – it gave weight to the failure of
Maldigan, et al. to controvert the fact that Maldrigan was employed by Mine Gold Taxi
from 1987- 1990 AND that Sabsalon abandoned his Taxi – and held that there was no
illegal dismissal.
o HOWEVER (and this is why Five J Taxi brought the case up to the SC even if the
NLRC had held that they did not illegally dismiss Maldigan and Sabsalon) the
NLRC modified the LA’s decision by ordering Five J Taxi to pay the
complainants their accumulated deposits and car wash payments.

ISSUES:

1. Was the NLRC correct in holding that the deposit was covered by the general prohibition
in Art. 114 (LC) against requiring employees to make deposits?
2. Were the drivers entitled to the refund of the car wash fee?

RULING:

NLRC Judgment MODIFIED

1. YES. Note that there was no showing that the SOLE had recognized the deposit as a
“practice” in the taxi industry.

 This does not apply to boundary deficiencies – the rule only covers deposits for loss or
damage to tools, materials, or equipment supplied by the employer.
  ALSO, when Maldrigan and Sabsalon stopped working for Five J Taxi, the alleged
purpose for which the deposits were required no longer existed.
 IN ANY EVENT, any balance due must be returned, with legal interest.
o For Sabsalon: That being said, no balance remains from the deposits given by
Sabsalon – although he was able to accumulate P3,579 between 1987 to 1991, he
had shortages totaling P4,327, AND he owed Five J Taxi P2,700 for “vales”.
(Bumale?)
o For Maldigan: Nothing similar was mentioned – SC agreed with the SolGen that
he should be reimbursed the amount of his accumulated cash deposits.

2. NO. SC upheld the finding of the Labor Arbiter that in the taxi industry, it is a matter of
practice that it is incumbent upon the driver to restore the unit to the same clean condition
as when he had taken it out.
 The fee was paid directly to the person who washed the unit.
 SC quoted the SolGen’s observation that to save money, the drivers could wash the car
themselves.

DOCTRINE:

Art. 114 of the Labor Code provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to tools,
materials or equipment supplied by the employer. The exceptional case where an employer may
require his worker to make deposits to answer for loss of or damage to tools, materials, or
equipment – when the employer is engaged in a trade, etc. where such is a recognized practice,
or is by the determination of the SOLE in appropriate rules and regulations necessary or
desirable – does NOT apply to deposits meant to answer for deficiencies in the boundary fees.

SECTION 9. Any person claiming any interest in any part of the lands, whether named in the
notice or not, shall appear before the Court by himself, or by some person in his behalf and shall
file an answer on or before the return day or within such further time as may be allowed by the
Court. The answer shall be signed and sworn to by the claimant or by some person in his behalf,
and shall state whether the claimant is married or unmarried, and, if married, the name of the
husband or wife and the date of the marriage, and shall also contain:

A. The age of the claimant.

B. The cadastral number of the lot or lots claimed, as appearing on the plan filed in the case
by the Director of Lands, or the block and lot numbers, as the case may be.
C. The name of the barrio and municipality, township, or settlement in which the lots are
situated.
D. The names of the owners of the adjoining lots as far as known to the claimant.
E. If the claimant is in possession of the lots claimed and can show no express grant of the
land by the Government to him or to his predecessors in interest, the answer shall state
the length of time he has held such possession and the manner in which it has been
acquired, and shall also state the length of time, as far as known, during which his
predecessors, if any, held possession.
F. If the claimant is not in possession or occupation of the lands, the answer shall fully set
forth the interest claimed by him and the time and manner of its acquisition.
 G. If the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last assessed value.
H. The encumbrance, if any, affecting the lots and the names of the adverse claimants as far
as known.

PROCEEDINGS WHERE LAWYERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM

APPEARING

1. SECTION 1. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIM CASES

Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.– No attorney shall appear in behalf of or

represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or defendant. If the
court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or defense and needs
assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another individual who is not an
attorney to assist that party upon the latter’s consent.

2. SECTION 415 - R.A. NO. 7160 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE)

In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person

without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents
who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.

SANCTION FOR UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

Section 3(e), Rule 71, Rules of Court

Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority