G.R. No. L-32772 April 30, 1979
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner, vs. GSIS SUPERVISORS UNION and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

FACTS

The GSIS Supervisors Union (GSISSU) filed a case before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) demanding a one-step salary increase for its supervisory personnel, similar to what was granted to rank-and-file employees via a collective bargaining agreement. The CIR ruled in favor of the union, ordering GSIS to grant the increase. The GSIS appealed this decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-32018). Pending that appeal, the union’s counsel filed a notice of attorney’s lien based on a contingent fee retainer agreement for 15% of any salary adjustment awarded. The CIR approved this lien.
Subsequently, during the pendency of the Supreme Court appeal, the GSIS paid 50% of the salary increase differential to the supervisory personnel. The union’s counsel then moved to enforce their attorney’s lien. The CIR granted the motion, ordering GSIS to deduct 15% from the amounts already paid and from future differentials. GSIS moved for reconsideration, arguing the payment was made under a collective bargaining agreement, not the CIR order, and that the appeal automatically stayed the execution of the judgment. The CIR en banc denied the motion, prompting this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) Whether the CIR gravely abused its discretion in ordering the deduction of attorney’s fees from payments GSIS claimed were made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, and (2) Whether the filing of a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-32018) automatically stayed the execution of the CIR’s judgment on the salary increase, thereby barring the enforcement of the attorney’s lien.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s orders. On the first issue, the Court found GSIS’s claim untenable. The CIR’s original decision explicitly found that the supervisory personnel, with whom GSIS had no collective bargaining agreement, were being discriminated against by not receiving the increase granted to rank-and-file. The payment made by GSIS was, therefore, a partial implementation of the very CIR order it was appealing, not an independent act under a collective bargaining agreement. Since the payment resulted from the court’s directive, the contingent fee agreement attached, and the CIR properly ordered the deduction.
On the second issue, while Republic Act No. 5440 provided that a petition for certiorari stays the execution of the CIR judgment, the Court ruled that GSIS could not invoke this provision. By voluntarily making the partial payment of the salary differential, GSIS effectively implemented the judgment it was appealing. Having chosen to execute the award partially, it could not then turn around and use the statutory stay to avoid the ancillary consequence of that execution—the payment of the attorney’s fees that were integral to securing the award. The Court held that GSIS was estopped from refusing the deduction after having benefited from, and acted upon, the CIR’s decision.