G.R. No. L-21152 September 30, 1965
COTO LABOR UNION (NLU), petitioner, vs. JOSE C. ESPINAS and EULOGIO R. LERUM, respondents.

FACTS

The Coto Labor Union engaged the services of respondent Atty. Jose C. Espinas on a contingent basis for CIR Case No. 1029-V, agreeing to pay him 20% of any amount recovered, plus setting aside 5% to guarantee payment of advances from the Philippine Transport Workers Organization. On February 21, 1961, the Union again contracted Atty. Espinas for CIR Case No. 1029-V(2), agreeing to pay 25% of any amount collected from Benguet Consolidated Mining Company. Atty. Espinas also rendered legal services for a strike and prepared briefs for Supreme Court cases (G.R. Nos. L-12000, L-12394, L-17202). The Union also engaged the services of respondent Atty. Eulogio R. Lerum to assist Atty. Espinas in the mentioned CIR cases, and Atty. Lerum filed pleadings and appeared at hearings on behalf of the Union. Subsequently, CIR Cases Nos. 1029-V and 1029-V(2) were settled amicably by the Union and the mining company without counsel’s intervention for P300,000. Atty. Espinas and Atty. Lerum filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations praying that 15% and 10%, respectively, of the P300,000 be held subject to their charging lien for services rendered. The Union objected, arguing the fees were excessive, that it had no contractual relation with Atty. Lerum (claiming he was engaged by Atty. Espinas), and that Atty. Lerum’s fee should be deducted from Atty. Espinas’s claim. The Presiding Judge of the CIR issued an order awarding the fees, which was affirmed by the CIR en banc.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations correctly awarded attorney’s fees of 15% of the P300,000 settlement to Atty. Jose C. Espinas and 10% to Atty. Eulogio R. Lerum.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order and resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations. Regarding Atty. Espinas, the written contract explicitly stipulated compensation of 25% of any amount due “whether by action or settlement.” The CIR found that Atty. Espinas never gave the assurance of a two-million-peso recovery as alleged by the Union, and the non-realization of a larger amount was due to the amicable settlement, not his fault. The CIR, being in a better position to assess the nature and value of services rendered over six years on a contingent basis, determined 15% to be just and equitable, and the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb this conclusion. Regarding Atty. Lerum, the evidence showed he was hired by the Union president to help Atty. Espinas, he appeared as counsel of record in pleadings and court orders which the Union never questioned, and the Union president admitted his services were satisfactory and reasonably worth the amount claimed. Therefore, Atty. Lerum was engaged as separate counsel and is entitled to 10% of the recovery as reasonable compensation.