G.R. No. L-26890-92 May 29, 1970
NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, respondent, JESUS CENTENO, ET AL., intervenors.

FACTS

Upon presidential certification of a labor dispute in 1957, petitioner NWSA Consolidated Unions filed Case No. 19-IPA against respondent National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NWSA) in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), demanding implementation of the 40-Hour Week Law and alleging violations of their collective bargaining agreement. The CIR ruled for the petitioner on January 16, 1961, and this decision was affirmed with modifications by the Supreme Court on August 31, 1964 (G.R. No. L-18938). Due to the respondent’s failure to implement this modified judgment, the petitioner union went on strike, leading to another presidential certification and the docketing of Case No. 66-IPA. In a partial decision in Case No. 66-IPA, based on a conciliated agreement, respondent NWSA appropriated P300,000.00 to implement the decision in Case No. 19-IPA. Attorneys Cipriano Cid and Israel Bocobo, who participated in both cases, moved for and were granted attorney’s fees. Atty. Atanacio Pacis, who was counsel for the union in Case No. 19-IPA as a member of the Cid law firm but did not appear in Case No. 66-IPA, also moved for his fees. The CIR, in an order dated July 18, 1966, granted his motion, ordering payment of P18,000.00 (6% of the P300,000.00) as his attorney’s fee. This order was based on a prior CIR order dated November 27, 1964, which had allocated attorney’s fees totaling 23% of the awards, distributing 6% each to Attys. Cid, Pacis, and Bocobo, and 5% to the union’s general fund. The petitioner unions appealed the July 18, 1966 order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in ordering the payment of attorney’s fees to Atty. Atanacio Pacis from the P300,000.00 appropriated by NWSA pursuant to the partial decision in Case No. 66-IPA, despite his lack of participation in that case.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order. It held that while the P300,000.00 was appropriated pursuant to an agreement in Case No. 66-IPA, the conciliated stipulation explicitly stated that the appropriation was made to satisfy the union’s claims under the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in G.R. No. L-18938, which affirmed the award in Case No. 19-IPA. The agreement made no reference to implementing the award in Case No. 66-IPA itself, as that case was still pending. Therefore, the money was specifically allocated to satisfy the claims adjudicated in Case No. 19-IPA, wherein Atty. Pacis actively participated as counsel. Consequently, it was just for him to receive his allocated 6% attorney’s fee from that appropriation. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim of deprivation of property without due process.