Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

TRADERS ROYAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION-INDEPENDENT VS.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION


G.R. NO. 120592, March 14, 1997, SECOND DIVISION, (Regalado, J.)

FACTS:

Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent and Atty. Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz entered
into a retainer agreement whereby the Union obligated itself to pay Cruz a retainer fee of P3000. During
the existence of the agreement, the Union referred to Cruz the claim of its members for holiday, mid-year
and year-end bonuses against Traders Royal Bank (TRB) which was filed with the NLRC. The Union
obtained a favorable judgment from the NLRC and was challenged before the SC by TRB. The SC
modified the decision, deleting the award for mid-year and year-end bonuses but affirmed the award for
holiday pay differential. When he received the order of the SC, Cruz notified the Union, TRB and the
NLRC of his right to exercise and enforce his attorney’s lien over the award for the holiday pay
differential. He filed a motion with the labor arbiter to determine the attorney’s fees and prayed that the
amount of 10% of the total award be given. The labor arbiter granted his petition which led the Union to
appeal to the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter and denied the subsequent
motion for reconsideration.

The Union argues that the NLRC acted without jurisdiction in making the award for attorney’s
fees and argues that the said fees should have been incorporated in the main case and not after the SC has
already reviewed and passed upon the decision of the NLRC. Also, there shouldn’t be payment of
attorney’s fees anymore because of anything due to Cruz is already covered by the P3,000.00 retainer.

On the other hand, Atty. Cruz argues that attorney’s fees are mere incidents of the main case
where the Union was awarded its money claims and to include such fees in the case would presuppose
that the fees will be paid by Traders to the Union. Also, according to him, the P3000.00 retainer fee is not
the attorney’s fees contemplated for.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cruz is entitled to attorney’s fees despite the P3,000.00 retainer fee?

HELD:
Yes. Evidently, the P3000 monthly fee in the retainer agreement between the union and the law firm
referes to a general retainer as said monthly fee covers only the law firm’s pledge, or as expressly stated
therein, its “commitment to render legal services enumerated.” The fee is not payment for private
respondent’s execution or performance of the services listed in the contract, subject to some particular
qualifications or permutations stated there.

Private respondent is entitled to an additional remuneration for pursuing legal action in the
interest of petitioner before the labor arbiter and the NLRC, on top of the P3000 retainer fee he received
monthly from petitioner. The law firm’s services are decidedly worth more than such basic fee in the
retainer agreement.

WHEREFORE, the impugned resolution of respondent National Labor Relations Commission


affirming the order of the labor arbiter is MODIFIED, and petitioner is hereby ORDERED to pay the
amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000) as attorney’s fees to private respondent for the latter’s
legal services rendered to the former.

S-ar putea să vă placă și