GR L 26622; (May, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26622 and L-26774. May 31, 1974.
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES SUPERVISORS’ ASSOCIATION (PALSA) and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., petitioners, vs. ENRIQUE JIMENEZ, MARIANO AMPIL, JR., PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
These consolidated cases stem from efforts by Attorneys Enrique Jimenez and Mariano Ampil, Jr., acting for the Philippine Air Lines Employees Association (PALEA), to collect attorneys’ fees and a union fee totaling 25% from the back wages awarded to all Philippine Air Lines (PAL) employees. The back wages were due for Saturday work from 1957 to 1961, awarded pursuant to a final judgment in a prior case (PALEA vs. PAL) which declared Republic Act No. 1880 (the 40-hour work week law) applicable to PAL as a government-controlled corporation. The petitioners are the Philippine Air Lines Supervisors’ Association (PALSA), a separate union whose members are supervisors ineligible to join PALEA, and PAL itself. PALSA members and non-union PAL employees received their back wages in full from PAL but resisted the 25% deduction claimed by respondents.
The respondents filed a complaint against PALSA, PAL, and all non-union PAL employees to compel payment of the 25% charge. The trial court dismissed the complaint. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, ordering that the 25% be deducted from the back wages due to PALSA members and non-union employees and paid to the respondents. PALSA and PAL elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether respondents PALEA and its attorneys can legally collect attorneys’ fees and a union fee from PAL employees who are not members of PALEA, based solely on the benefits derived from the favorable judgment in the prior PALEA vs. PAL case.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that the respondents’ claim against non-PALEA members lacked legal basis. The fundamental principle is that attorneys’ fees are due only to an attorney from his client, arising from their contract of employment or a specific law. Similarly, union fees are collectible only from members of that union. The prior judgment in PALEA vs. PAL, while benefiting all PAL employees, did not create an attorney-client relationship between respondents Jimenez and Ampil and the employees who were not members of PALEA. These employees—members of PALSA or of no union—never retained, contracted with, or authorized the respondents to represent them. Therefore, they incurred no obligation to pay the respondents’ fees.
The Court emphasized that the benefits received by non-PALEA members were merely a necessary incident of the judgment obtained by PALEA for its own cause, not a service rendered for them. To allow such a charge would unjustly enrich the respondents at the expense of employees with whom they had no privity. Consequently, the complaint stated no cause of action against PALSA members and non-union employees. Since PAL’s only alleged liability was to withhold and pay the disputed percentages from these employees’ back wages, and as the employees themselves owed nothing, PAL was likewise correctly absolved by the trial court. The dismissal of the complaint was proper.