STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND TAGKAWAYAN LABOR UNION, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc. – hereinafter referred to as
the Company – seeks the review
of a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations – hereinafter referred to
as the CIR – sitting en banc, dated February 16,
1965, affirming an order of its Presiding Judge, dated November 11, 1964,
authorizing the Company to deduct from the sum of P35,263.50, held by the same
and due as back wages of 113 workers dismissed by said Company, and members of
respondent Tagkawayan Labor Union – hereinafter
referred to as PLUM – the amount equivalent to 30% of said sum and directing
the Company to deliver and pay the amount so deducted to Atty. Vicente A. Rafael by way of his attorney’s
fees, as counsel for the PLUM in cases Nos. 198-ULP and 943-V of the CIR, and
to deposit the balance, or 70% of said sum of P35,263.50, with the CIR, for
further disposition, presumably, by the latter.

On February 29, 1964, the Supreme Court
rendered its decision in G. R. Nos. L-19273 and L-19274, modifying that of the
CIR in said cases Nos. 198-ULP
and 943-V thereof, entitled “Tagkawayan Labor
Union (PLUM) vs. Sta. Cecilia
Sawmills, Inc. et al.,” by ordering the payment by the Company of the back
wages, for three (3) months, of 113 of its workers it had dismissed.  Said decision of the Supreme Court having
become final and executory, Atty. Vicente A. Rafael, as counsel for the complainant in
said cases, filed with the CIR, on August 6, 1964, an “urgent motion for
execution” (Annex A), praying that the Company be ordered to deposit the
wages for three (3) months of 401 members of the PLUM involved in the said
cases, so that the amount of his attorney’s lien and the wages due to said
workers could soon be withdrawn by them. 
At the hearing of said motion, the parties agreed on the following, which was incorporated into an order
of the CIR dated October 27, 1964
(Annex C):

“1. That only 113 workers, and not 401 as claimed by complainant’s counsel
in his motion, are entitled to three months wages;

“2. That respondents
will prepare the computation of the back wages due to those 113 workers within fifteen
(15) days from the date of hearing, and the same will be submitted to counsel
for complainant for his approval;

“3. The manner of
payment, whether directly to the laborers or through the union counsel will be
discussed further by the parties after the computation mentioned above has been
prepared;

“4. That after the
payment has been made, counsel for complainant will
inform this Court that the judgment has been satisfied.”

On November 3, 1964,
the Company filed with the CIR a statement to the effect that, upon
computation, the back wages due to the 113 laborers referred to in the
aforementioned agreement and order aggregate P35,263.50.  Forthwith, or on November 4, 1964, there was
filed with the CIR a “notice of charging liens on back wages”, bearing
the signa­tures of Atty. Rafael, Francisco Andres and Salvador Puri­sima, as counsel, treasurer and assistant treasurer,
res­pectively, of the PLUM.  It was
alleged in said notice that Atty. Rafael had a right to 30% of said sum of P35,263.50 as compensation
for services rendered by him to the Union, in connection with said cases, in
the CIR and the Supreme Court, for a period of eleven (11) years, including ex­penses
incurred by him for “transcripts, pleadings, etc.,” which had not
been refunded to him.  The notice wound
up with the prayer that the Company be authorized, inter alia, to deduct 30% of said sum of P35,263.50 and
pay it to Atty. Rafael, as his aforementioned fees, and that the balance be
retained by the Company until further disposition by the Court.

On November 11, 1964,
the Presiding Judge of the CIR is­sued
an order authorizing the Company to make the aforesaid deduction and
ordering the Company to deliver the amount thereof to Atty. Rafael, as his
fees, as well as to deposit the balance of said back wages with the court, for
future disposition.  A reconsideration of
this order having been denied by the CIR, en banc, in a
resolution dated November 4, 1964, the Company interposed the present appeal,
upon the ground that said court had erred in issuing the aforementioned order
and the resolution affirming it, because there had been no proof of service of
said “notice of charging liens”, either to the Company or to the 113
laborers above mentioned, and because, in ordering the Company to deposit in court
the back wages due to the laborers or the balance thereof, after paying the
fees to Atty. Rafael, the CIR had, in effect, sought to amend the decision of
the Supreme Court in G. R. Nos. L-19273 and L-19274, which
directed no such deposit.

This appeal is manifestly
devoid of merit, for:

1. The deposit of the amount aforementioned constitutes merely a
part of the process of execution of the decision of this Court. Decisions do
not usually specify the manner of execution thereof, the same being governed by
law,which, for all intents
and purposes, is part of the decision itself.

2. As regards the
alleged absence of proof of service of the “notice” in question to
the laborers concerned, suffice it to say that said notice bears the signature
of the proper officers of the PLUM, which had brought
the action on behalf of said laborers, who were members of said Union.  At any rate, the Company has no authority to
represent the laborers in connection with the alleged absence of proof of
service to them of said notice or to complain therefor,
or to set it up as a defense, which belongs to them, exclusively.

3. The aforementioned notice states that copy thereof had been
furnished Atty. Abalos, counsel for the Company.  Moreover, the latter had filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order granting the prayer made in said notice.  In other words, the Company has already had
an opportunity to state its objections to said notice and to the relief therein
prayed for.  Besides, the record shows
that the Company has no valid grounds to contest either the validity of the
lien asserted by Atty. Rafael or the amount claimed by him for his services as
counsel for said laborers or the PLUM.

WHEREFORE,
the order and the resolution appealed are hereby affirmed, with costs against
herein petitioner, Sta. Cecilia Sawmills, Inc.

IT IS SO
ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
and Castro, JJ.,
concur.