G.R. No. L-65882-84 April 15, 1988
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND GABRIEL V. MANANSALA, respondents.

FACTS

The National Power Corporation (NPC) and the National Power Corporation Employees and Workers Association (NPCEWA) were involved in protracted labor disputes, which resulted in multiple cases before the Court of Industrial Relations and its successor, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The parties eventually settled through a Supplemental Agreement dated July 9, 1973, and filed a joint motion to withdraw all pending cases. Atty. Simplicio J. Balcos, NPCEWA’s former counsel, opposed the withdrawal, claiming it would deprive him of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court, in a 1979 Joint Resolution, granted the motion to withdraw but directed the Secretary of Labor to receive evidence to fix Atty. Balcos’s reasonable attorney’s fees.
Subsequently, Atty. Gabriel V. Manansala, who served as NPCEWA’s counsel during the successful negotiations leading to the Supplemental Agreement, filed a Motion for Remittance of Attorney’s Fees with the NLRC. NPC moved to dismiss, asserting it no longer held funds in trust for NPCEWA beyond a P10,000 check already prepared for Manansala. The Labor Arbiter denied the motion, characterizing NPC as a trustee of union funds and ordering it to deliver the P10,000 to Manansala. The Arbiter later directed NPC to deposit P1,267,400 as total computed attorney’s fees. NPC appealed this order to the NLRC en banc. While this appeal was pending, the NLRC issued a Resolution dated August 10, 1983, affirming the Labor Arbiter’s earlier order for partial execution of the P10,000 claim. NPC elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the order for partial execution of Atty. Manansala’s claim for attorney’s fees while the main appeal on the propriety and amount of those fees was still pending before the NLRC en banc.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted NPC’s petition and annulled the NLRC’s Resolution. The Court held that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion by authorizing partial execution prematurely. The legal logic is grounded in procedural order and the nature of appellate review. When NPC filed its appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s order directing the deposit of over P1.2 million, the entire determination of Manansala’s rightful attorney’s fees was placed in issue and sub judice before the NLRC en banc. Allowing partial execution of a component of that very claim while the appeal on the merits was unresolved would pre-empt the appellate body’s authority. It would permit the enforcement of a monetary award that was still subject to potential modification or reversal. The Court clarified that while the NLRC properly assumed jurisdiction over Manansala’s motion as a collateral matter to the main labor cases, its authority to order execution must be exercised judiciously. Execution pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy, generally impermissible when the appealed order itself is the subject of a substantive challenge that could nullify the basis for the claim. Therefore, the NLRC should have held the order for partial execution in abeyance pending the final resolution of the main appeal on the total attorney’s fees due. The Resolution dated August 10, 1983, was set aside for being issued prematurely.