G.R. No. L-50733 June 23, 1988
ATTY. VICENTE T. OCAMPO and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), petitioners, vs. ATTY. EULOGIO R. LERUM, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR, AMADO G. INCIONG, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from an intra-union rivalry within the Philippine Air Lines Employees Association (PALEA) between the Sano Faction and the Biangco Faction, each claiming legitimate leadership. Petitioner Atty. Vicente Ocampo was counsel for the Sano Faction, while respondent Atty. Eulogio Lerum represented the Biangco Faction. During pending litigation before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) filed by the Sano Faction to restrain PAL from dealing with the Biangco group, the Biangco Faction, assisted by Atty. Lerum, successfully negotiated and signed a collective bargaining agreement with PAL on April 28, 1969, which granted retroactive wage increases. From these increases, PAL deducted amounts for attorney’s fees and union service fees, depositing the attorney’s fees of P64,472.48 with the CIR as ordered. Both lawyers, Ocampo and Lerum, were able to withdraw portions of this fund (P26,000 and P30,000 respectively) upon posting bonds.

ISSUE

The core issue is who between the two lawyers is lawfully entitled to the attorney’s fees generated from the retroactive wage increases negotiated in 1969.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Atty. Eulogio Lerum is exclusively entitled to the entire amount of attorney’s fees. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that attorney’s fees are compensation for services rendered in procuring a favorable result. The record clearly established that the retroactive wage increases, which were the sole source of the contested fees, were negotiated and consummated solely through the efforts of Atty. Lerum on behalf of the Biangco Faction. Critically, no court order was ever issued restraining PAL from negotiating with that faction. In contrast, Atty. Ocampo, representing the rival Sano Faction, actively sought to enjoin these very negotiations through legal actions before the CIR and the Supreme Court. Therefore, Ocampo did not contribute to the procurement of the wage increases; his legal efforts were directed against the settlement that generated the fees. Consequently, he could not claim any share in the compensation derived from that settlement. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the resolutions of the NLRC and the Deputy Minister of Labor, which awarded the fees to Lerum. The petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit.