National Waterworks And Sewerage Authority v. Unions

PARAS, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Order dated July 15, 1970, of the defunct Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) in cases Nos. 19-IPA, 19-IPA (1), 19-IPA (2), entitled NWSA Consolidated Unions vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority stating: WHEREFORE, the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to issue the Writ of Execution against respondent NWSA for the sum of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND (P48,000.00) PESOS. (Rollo, p. 30).

as well as the Resolution dated August 11, 1970, of the same court, sitting en banc, in the said cases denying petitioner National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority's (NWSA) motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned order. It appears that a cluster of cases involving NWSA and the respondent NWSA Consolidated Unions were instituted before the defunct CIR over disputes dealing with collective bargaining agreements, backwages, etc., as well as attomey's fees of the lawyers who assisted the NWSA employees and workers through their consolidated unions, namely, Cases Nos. 66-IPA and 19-IPA, 45-IPA, 27-IPA and 54-IPA. The NWSA employees and workers eventually prevailed, and the respondent NWSA Consolidated Unions, particularly KKMK-PAFLU and BELA-PAFLU through their respective presidents, Attys.

Cipriano Cid, Israel Bocobo as well as herein respondent Atty. Atanacio Pacis were all awarded their respective shares in the attorney's fees. The controversy arising in the instant cases before the Supreme Court deals with the propriety of payment of the attorney's fees of Atty. Atanacio Pacis amounting to P48,000.00 representing 6% of the gross sum of P800,000.00 which NWSA has already paid to its employees and workers in staggered amounts of P300,000.00 and P500,000.00 less the attomey's fees as settled in the CIR Order dated June 16, 1966 which wittingly or unwittingly left out the share of Atty. Pacis. The rather complex character of the present petition before this Court is the fact that the respondent NWSA Consolidated Unions, which had already been paid the sums from NWSA, did not file its answer to the petition much less a brief in its behalf, so much so that reliance may only be made upon the arguments and allegations of petitioner NWSA and the brief answer of Atty. Pacis.

The following facts can however, be reasonably established: The attorney's fee due to the respondent Atty. Atanacio Pacis was first established in the CIR Order of November 27, 1964 which became final in the absence of any appeal therefrom and/or a reconsideration thereof. This order fixed the fees of the lawyers and the share of the NWSA Consolidated Unions as follows: Atty. Cipriano Cid. 6% Atty. Atanacio E. Pacis 6% Atty. Israel Bocobo.

6% NWSA Consolidated Unions 5%