GR 203328; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203328 November 8, 2017
JOSELITO A. ALVA, Petitioner vs. HIGH CAPACITY SECURITY FORCE, INC. and ARMANDO M. VILLANUEVA, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Joselito A. Alva was a security guard and later a Security Officer for respondent High Capacity Security Force, Inc. Following an incident involving a subordinate, Alva was suspended and subsequently placed on floating status. Despite requests for assignment, he was not given any post. This prompted Alva, assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Alva’s favor, awarding backwages, separation pay, and attorney’s fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified the decision, finding the dismissal was for just cause but procedurally defective, awarding nominal damages and monetary claims but later deleting the attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the deletion of attorney’s fees, prompting Alva’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the award of attorney’s fees to the petitioner who was represented by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO).
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the award of attorney’s fees. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct nature and purpose of attorney’s fees in labor cases. The award is not intended to compensate a hired private counsel but is a form of indemnity for the vindication of a worker’s rights. The Court clarified that the availment of free legal services from the PAO does not preclude such an award. The basis for the award is found in Article 111 of the Labor Code and Article 2208 of the Civil Code, which allow recovery when the defendant’s act compels litigation or in actions for recovery of wages of laborers. Here, the respondents’ unlawful act of constructively dismissing Alva compelled him to litigate to protect his interests. The award, equivalent to ten percent of the total monetary award, is justified as a means to deter employers from withholding valid claims and to provide just compensation to the employee who was forced to seek judicial relief. The fact that legal services were provided gratuitously by the state does not extinguish the employer’s liability for causing the litigation.