G.R. No. L-24235-36, April 18, 1967
STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and TAGKAWAYAN LABOR UNION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. (the Company) sought review of a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) en banc dated February 16, 1965, which affirmed an order of its Presiding Judge dated November 11, 1964. The order authorized the Company to deduct 30% from the sum of P35,263.50—held by the Company and due as back wages to 113 dismissed workers who were members of respondent Tagkawayan Labor Union (PLUM)—and to pay the deducted amount to Atty. Vicente A. Rafael as attorney’s fees for representing PLUM in CIR Cases Nos. 198-ULP and 943-V. The order further directed the Company to deposit the remaining 70% with the CIR for further disposition.
The back wages were awarded pursuant to a final and executory Supreme Court decision dated February 29, 1964, in G.R. Nos. L-19273 and L-19274, which modified the CIR’s decision and ordered the Company to pay three months’ back wages to the 113 workers. Following this, Atty. Rafael filed an “urgent motion for execution.” After a hearing, the parties agreed, and the CIR issued an order on October 27, 1964, stipulating that: (1) only 113 workers were entitled to back wages; (2) the Company would compute the back wages within 15 days; (3) the manner of payment would be discussed later; and (4) counsel would inform the court once payment was made.
On November 3, 1964, the Company submitted a computation showing total back wages of P35,263.50. The next day, a “notice of charging liens on back wages” was filed, signed by Atty. Rafael and PLUM officers, claiming a 30% attorney’s lien for services rendered over eleven years, including unreimbursed expenses. The notice prayed for authorization to deduct 30% for Atty. Rafael and retain the balance pending court disposition. The CIR Presiding Judge granted this via the November 11, 1964 order. The Company’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CIR en banc, prompting this appeal. The Company argued that there was no proof of service of the lien notice to the Company or the workers, and that the deposit order effectively amended the Supreme Court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the CIR committed error in: (1) ordering the deposit of the back wages (or balance thereof) with the court, and (2) authorizing the deduction for attorney’s fees despite alleged lack of proof of service of the lien notice.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s order and resolution, holding the appeal devoid of merit.
1. On the deposit order: The deposit was merely part of the execution process of the Supreme Court’s final decision. Decisions typically do not specify the manner of execution, as this is governed by law, which is deemed part of the decision itself. Thus, the CIR did not amend the Supreme Court’s decision.
2. On the alleged lack of proof of service of the lien notice:
– The notice bore the signatures of PLUM officers, and the Union had brought the action on behalf of the workers. The Company lacked authority to represent the workers or complain about service of the notice on their behalf, as this defense belonged exclusively to the workers.
– The notice stated that a copy was furnished to Atty. Abalos, the Company’s counsel. Moreover, the Company had filed a motion for reconsideration, thereby availing itself of an opportunity to object. The record showed the Company had no valid grounds to contest the validity of Atty. Rafael’s lien or the claimed amount for his services.
The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s order and resolution, with costs against petitioner Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc.