G.R. No. L-19455-56 January 30, 1967
RUFINO MARTINEZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, FOGONEROS Y MOTORMEN, UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE TRENES, KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRRCO and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

1. In a prior certification election case (Case No. 237-MC), the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) designated the Union de Maquinistas, Fogoneros y Motormen (Union) and the Union de Empleados de Trenes as bargaining representatives for specific groups of employees, and the Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa MRRCO (Kapisanan) for the rest of the Manila Railroad Company’s personnel. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
2. After a strike by the Union and Union de Empleados de Trenes in 1957, the dispute was certified to the CIR (Case Nos. 17-IPA and 18-IPA). The Kapisanan intervened.
3. A temporary wage increase of P15.00 effective July 1, 1957, was initially granted to the striking union members and later, by CIR order dated October 19, 1959, extended to Kapisanan members. This temporary increase was made permanent and applicable to every company employee by CIR decisions dated December 23, 1960, which became final after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
4. Attorneys for the unions filed claims for attorney’s fees on the wage increase benefits. The CIR, by order dated December 7, 1959, granted a lien of 10% to Atty. Carlos E. Santiago and 5% to Atty. Sisenando Villaluz on the P15.00 temporary increase paid to Kapisanan members.
5. Subsequently, the CIR, by order dated October 30, 1961, extended this attorney’s lien to cover the wage increase received by all other employees of the company who were not members of the involved unions. The petitioners, who are non-union members, challenged this order.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction to determine and award the attorney’s fees in question.
2. Whether the CIR erred in awarding attorney’s fees despite the absence of an attorney-client relationship between the claimant lawyers and the petitioners (non-union members).
3. Whether the CIR committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the award summarily without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the CIR had jurisdiction. Since the CIR had jurisdiction over the main cases (Nos. 17-IPA and 18-IPA), it likewise had full jurisdiction to consider and decide all collateral matters, including claims for attorney’s fees by the lawyers who appeared in the case.
2. On Attorney-Client Relationship and Equity of the Award: The Court affirmed the award, citing its precedent in Union de Empleados de Trenes vs. Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa MRRCO (G.R. No. L-14762, December 20, 1961). The policy of the law is to encourage unionism. It would be unjust to allow non-union members to receive benefits secured through the efforts and struggles of union members and their attorneys without contributing to the cost. Therefore, attorneys who secured benefits for all employees are entitled to corresponding fees from all who benefited. However, the Court modified the award, reducing it to 5% for Atty. Santiago and 5% for Atty. Villaluz on the salary differentials due to each petitioner.
3. On Due Process: The Court found the petitioners’ claim of lack of hearing untenable. The record showed petitioners were served notice of the motion, filed a detailed opposition, and later filed a motion for reconsideration with a supporting memorandum. The CIR order itself referred to a hearing and the “manifestation of the parties.” Thus, petitioners were duly heard.
DISPOSITIVE: The order appealed from is affirmed as modified, with costs.