GR L 10781; (May, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10781; May 29, 1959
Cebu Portland Cement Company, petitioner, vs. Maximo J. Savellano (Sr.) and Court of Industrial Relations, respondents.
FACTS
Maximo J. Savellano Sr. and 81 other employees were dismissed by Cebu Portland Cement Company on November 16, 1950. They filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on March 24, 1952, seeking reinstatement with backpay. Savellano Sr. signed the petition “In his own behalf and as Attorney for Petitioners.” The CIR, after trial, ordered the reinstatement of Savellano Sr. and five others with backpay, minus earnings elsewhere. After this order became final, Savellano Jr. (son of Savellano Sr.), as counsel for his father and the five other awardees, filed a motion for immediate payment of the backpays, requesting that a 20% attorney’s fee be deducted and paid to him, except for the back salaries due to Savellano Sr., which should be paid without deduction. The company opposed this motion, arguing that the attorney’s fee for Savellano Sr.’s legal services to the other awardees should be deducted from his backpay. The CIR granted the motion, finding that Savellano Sr. was not to receive any fee from his co-petitioners, that Savellano Jr. had actively prosecuted the case, and that the awardees had a contract for attorney’s fees with Savellano Jr. The company’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether deduction for attorney’s fees should be made from the backpay of Savellano Sr., based on the claim that he acted as counsel for the other awardees.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations. The record showed no proof that Savellano Sr. actually received any attorney’s fees from his co-petitioners. The CIR found that no fees were due to him, as it was his son, Savellano Jr., who actively prosecuted the case and with whom the awardees had a contract for payment of fees. This contract was filed in court when Savellano Jr. registered his attorney’s lien. Furthermore, Savellano Sr. was the secretary-treasurer of the Manila Hotel, a government corporation, and could not engage in private legal practice. The Court also noted that the company’s motion for reconsideration was properly denied for failure to file a written argument within the required period, and no prejudice was caused by the lack of oral argument.