UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE TRENES, PETITIONER VS. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, SISENANDO VILLALUZ AND THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari against an order of the Court of Industrial
Relations (in its Case No. 270-V) dated September 15, 1958, and the resolution
en banc dated November 20, 1958, awarding Atty. Gregorio E. Fajardo,
Atty. Sisenando Villaluz and the Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad
Company, 10 per cent, 12 per cent and 1 per cent, respectively, of the amount of
P107,443.55, the first two as fees and the last as reimbursement of union
expenses incurred in said case. The awards are charged against the petitioner
Union de Empleados de Trenes upon the amount of P107,443.55 credited as
additional pay for night work of its members.

On February 17, 1949, Atty. Gregorio E. Fajardo filed the petition in case
No. 270-V in the name of the Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad
Company. Eleven demands were made in the petition, the first of which is for
additional compensation for night work- On February 10, 1950, a decision was
rendered in the said case granting an additional compensation of 25 per cent for
night work, that is, from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. On December 15, 1951, Atty.
Gregorio E. Fajardo was dismissed by the Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa sa Manila
Railroad Company and was replaced, so he did not have the time or opportunity to
secure an execution of the. award he obtained.

After the filing of case No. 270-V, another similar case was filed, C.I.R.
Case No. 368-V, by the petitioner herein, Union De Empleados De Trenes, seeking
the same relief demanded in Case No. 270-V. On June 1, 1950, the parties agreed
to abide by the decision rendered by the Court of Industrial Relations in said
Case No. 270-V, that is, the same award of an additional 25 per cent for night
work. It is to be noted that the original award in Case No. 270-V was made
applicable to all employees and workers of the Manila Railroad Company, whether
members of any union or not. Hence the members of petitioner wem benefited by
the award secured in Case No. 270-V.

After the separation of Atty. Gregorio E. Fajardo in 1951, Atty. Sisenando
Villaluz filed motions for the execution of the decision obtained by Atty.
Gregorio E. Fajardo, that is, the payment of the additional 25 per cent for
night work. Motions were presented in July, 1952, January, 1353, March, 1953 and
October, 1954, but to no avail. But when Col. Salvador T. Villa became the
manager of the Manila Railroad Company, and the finances of the Company
permitted it, the court ordered deposits from time to time, to cover the 25 per
cent pay for night work in previous years. These deposits accumulated up to
September, 1956. After the sums had been deposited as above indicated, Atty.
Gregorio E. Fajardo filed a notice of his lien for fees for services rendered in
securing the judgment for the payment of additional compensation. The railroad
company, thru Atty. Sisenando Villaluz, opposed the petition. The nature and
value of the services of Attys. Fajardo and Villaluz were carefully assessed in
the order of the court below fixing the fees of said lawyers, which states—

“The Court believes that the award for additional compensation for night work
which had been won by Atty. Fajardo for the petitioner is a job well-done from
the time the petition was filed with this Court up to the time he was asking for
compliance of the decision not only on May 12, 1950 but up to the time he was
dismissed by petitioner on December 12, 1951. Unfortunately, he was not able to
get the immediate execution of the award because of the poor financial condition
of the company. Any lawyer, for that matter, would not have been, able to obtain
execution of the award because of the circumstances beyond his control. As a
matter of fact, when he was sustained on December 12, 1951, his successor was
not able to get immediate execution of the award because of the poor financial
condition of the company. It was only during the able management of Col.
Salvador T. Villa that conditions of the company improved thus allowing the
negotiations to execute the award to become successful, resulting in the
issuance of the order of September 15, 1956. True, reference was made of the
cooperation and enlightened approach of the parties in the case especially the
lawyers. But it did not, by any stretch of imagination, ruledl out the services
rendered by any party that rendered possible the rightful claims of the
union.

As to the amount he is entitled to, it is quite evident that Atty. Fajardo
filed the case and had won it. There was nothing more left but to wait for the
company to be in a better financial condition so that the award could be
executed. Under the foregoing circumstances, the Court believes that ten (10%)
per cent of the total additional compensation for night work due from February
10, 1950 up to December 31, 1955 would be reasonable enough to be the attorney’s
fees of Atty. Fajardo.

Let us now dwell into the claims of Atty. Sisenando Villaluz for his
attorney’s fees. Fifteen (15%) per cent of the night work compensation, salary
differential and “francos” is being claimed as his attorney’s fees. Of course it
must be reiterated that this Court in the Order of September 15, 1956,
recognized the ability of the union lawyers in the negotiation to execute the
award, but such services are, it is believed as important as winning the case in
Court. However, inasmuch as Atty. Villaluz was able to execute not only the
award for 25 per cent additional compensation for night work but also the salary
differentials and “francos” which are long overdue contractual obligations of
the company to the employees and laborers, the Court believes that ten (10%) per
cent of the total additional compensation for night work due from February 10,
1950 to December 31, 1955 is quite reasonable also as his attorney’s
fees.”

as well as in the resolution en banc which states that—

“* * *. Considering the efforts exerted by Atty. Villaluz in the conciliation
of this case which rendered the early payment of the claim, without resort to
execution of the judgment, the Court further feels that he is entitled to 12 per
cent attorney’s fees.”

With respect to the claim of the petitioner that it should be excluded from
paying the fees of Attys. Fajardo and Villaluz, the court below made the
following remarks—

“With respect, however, to the desire of the Union de Empleados de Trenes to
be excluded in this case and to be included under Case No. 368-V for purposes of
payment of the 25 per cent night differential as well as other benefits therein,
the Court is constrained to deny the same. When the said Union had been allowed!
to intervene in this case, such matter was not brought up in its pleading in
intervention. As a matter of fact, in its answer in intervention, Atty. Fajardo
had been offered five (5%) per cent attorney’s fees. It even guaranteed the
payment of attorney’s fees and/or union expenses that may be adjudicated
corresponding to the P9,435.13 which it had withdrawn on December 26, 1957 out
of the deposits made by the company in the above-entitled case. Now that the
issue regarding attorney’s fees and union expenses had been submitted for
decision, it suddenly changed its stands in its memoranda dated August 14, and
15, 1958, by contending that it derived its benefits for night work in Case No.
368-V and not in the above-entitled case.”

The awards to Atty. Sisenando Villaluz and to the Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa
Sa Manila Railroad Company are the subject of this petition.

We find that the rulings of the court below are just and equitable. The claim
for 25 per cent additional pay for night work was secured in Case No. 368-V,
but, as the court has found, the award of said additional pay was originally
secured in Case No. 270-V. As a matter of fact, the parties in case No. 368-V
had agreed to abide by the award granted in Case No. 270-V. So that the
petitioner herein had secured, if not directly, at least indirectly, the
benefits of services rendered by Atty. Gregorio E. Fajardo, although rendered in
another case. It is only just that saftl attorney and Atty. Villaluz, be paid
out of the additional amounts collected by all the employees as a result of the
favorable award secured by said attorneys.

The records indicate that the different labor unions in the Manila Railroad
Company have already been receiving the 25 per cent additional pay for night
work secured by Atty. Fajardo. No mention is made in the decision of the right
of said attorneys to further compensation out of additional pay received
subsequent to September, 1956. It is our considered opinion that no further
percentages on said additional pays after September, 1956 should be granted said
attorneys.

The award of 1 per cent of the amount deposited in favor of respondent
Kapisanan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Manila Railroad Company, also appears to be just
and equitable. Said company had been paying a salary to its attorneys who
secured the awards. The amount granted by the lower court is only 1 per cent
and-this can not be said to be exhorbitant. We believe that the lower court did
not abuse its discretion in granting this reimbursement.

With the modification above indicated, i.e., that no further claims shall be
allowed, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.
Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.