G.R. No. 77959 January 9, 1989 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE SECRETAR! OF A"OR AND EMPO!MENT, THE REGIONA DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONA CAPITA REGION, DEPARTMENT OF A"OR AND EMPO!MENT an# UNITED RCPI COMMUNICATIONS A"OR ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION $URCPICA%&FUR, respondents. Ermitaño, Asuncion, Manzano & Associates for petitioner. The Solicitor General for public respondent. Abad, Leano & Associates for respondent U!"#!LA. U!"#!LA.
REGAADO, J.: This petition for certiorari seeks the annulment of the orders issued by public respondents in NWC Ref. No. W01-1, vi!" #1$ the order of %ay &, 1'() of respondent Re*ional +irector reuirin* petitioner Radio Communications of the hilippin hilippines, es, nc. #hereinafter #hereinafter,, RC$ RC$ and its employees employees represented represented by /uklod /uklod n* %an**a*aa %an**a*aa sa RC-N2 RC-N2 #/%RC-N2, for brevity$ to pay private respondent 3nited RC Communications 2abor 4ssociation #3RCC243R for short$ its 156 union service fee of 78&,(75.)0, 9ointly and severally, and accordin*ly directin* directin* the issuance of a rit of e:ecution and *arnishment of RC;s bank account for the satisfaction of said fee< #8$ the order of 4u*ust 1), 1'() of respondent respondent =ecretary =ecretary of 2abor and >mploymen >mploymentt modifyin* modifyin* the fore*oin* order by reducin* reducin* the union service fee to 106 of the aarded amounts and holdin* petitioner solely liable for the payment of such fee< and #$ the order, dated %arch 80, 1'(&, of respondent =ecretary denyin* petitioner;s motion for reconsideration. The records records 1 sho that on %ay 7, 1'(1, petitioner, a domestic corporation en*a*ed in the telecommunications business, filed ith the National Wa*es Council an application for e:emption from the covera*e of Wa*e ?rder No. 1. ' The application as opposed by respondent 3RCC24-3R, a labor or*ani!ation affiliated ith the ederation of 3nions of Ri!al #3R$. ?n %ay 88, 1'(1, the National Wa*es Council, throu*h its Chairman, rendered a letterdecision ( disapprovin* said application and orderin* the petitioner to pay its covered employees the mandatory livin* alloance of 8.00 daily effective %arch 88, 1'(1. =aid letter-decision as affirmed by the ?ffice of the resident in ?.. Case No. 1((8 and, subseuently, this Court in its resolution of @uly 15, 1'(5 in A.R. No. &017( dismissed RC;s petition for certiorari for lack of merit. >ntry of final 9ud*ment as issued by the Court on @uly 15, 1'(5. ) urthermore, it is not denied that as early as %arch 1, 1'(5, before the aforesaid case as elevated to this Court, respondent union filed a motion for the issuance of a rit of e:ecution, assertin* therein its claim to 156 of the total backpay due to all its members as Bunion service feeB for havin* successfully prosecuted the latter;s claim for paymen paymentt of a*es a*es and for reimbu reimburse rsemen mentt of e:pens e:penses es incurr incurred ed by 3R and prayed prayed for the se*re* se*re*ati ation on and remittance of said amount to 3R thru its National resident. 5 n a subseuent B%otion for mmediate ssuance of Writ of >:ecutionB, dated =eptember ', 1'(5, respondent union reiterated its claim for said union service fee but this time in an amount euivalent to 806 of the total backpay due its members, to be remitted to the institution previously adverted to. * ?n =eptember 87, 1'(5, petitioner filed its opposition to said motion, assertin*, amon* others, that Bthere is no le*al basis for respondent 3nion to have the sum euivalent to 806 union service fee deducted from the amount due to every recipient memberB. 7 4n alias rit of e:ecution as issued on =eptember 8), 1'(5. 8 ?n ?ctober 87, 1'(5, ithout the knoled*e and consent of respondent union, petitioner entered into a compromise a*reements 9 ith /%RC-N2 as the ne bar*ainin* a*ent of oppositors RC employees, the pertinent provisions hereof are hereunder reproduced"
W>R>4=, there are no pendin* ith the National 2abor Relations Commission Case No. N2RC-NCR- 11-58)5-( #N2, et al. vs. RC$ relative to RC;s alle*ed liabilities under .+. 1&1 and Wa*e ?rders 1, 8 and and N2RC Certified Case No. 05), ith the National Wa*es Council and the ?ffice of the Re*ional +irector, %inistry of 2abor and >mployment, National Capital Re*ion NWC Case Ref. No. W ?-1-1 #?.. Case No. 1((8, =.C. A.R. No. &017($ relative to RC;s alle*ed liabilities under Wa*e ?rder No. 1< and ith the ?ffice of the Re*ional +irector, %?2>NCR, a similar case #NCR-=+-10-11(- ($< ;W>R>4=, RC is one of the parties in the above cases and is herein represented by its duly authori!ed representativeDs hile the complainantDemployees of RC are the other real parties in interest in the said cases and are represented herein by /%RC-N2, the duly certified bar*ainin* a*ent of the said complainantDemployees< W>R>4=, it is to the actual interest and benefit of the parties mentioned in the precedin* W>R>4= #the herein parties$ that this Compromise 4*reement be entered into by and beteen them for the purpose of novatin* the above mentioned cases, particularly any and all decisions therein, ith the vie of re-definin* the parties; ri*hts and obli*ations under the various residential +ecrees andDor Wa*e ?rders sub9ects of the above mentioned cases. N?W, T>R>?R>, for and in consideration of the fore*oin* premises and the terms and conditions herein stated, the parties have a*reed and bound themselves as follos" T4T E 1. RC by ay of a compromise settlement acknoled*es its alle*ed liability under + 1&1 #mandatory third year$ and Wa*e ?rder 1 #first and third year$ sub9ect of the cases mentioned in the first W>R>4= hereof< 8. 4s consideration for the dismissal ith pre9udice of the above-captioned cases and the novation thereof and of all decisions in said cases, the parties hereby further a*ree that" a$ ?n November 0, 1'(5, RC shall pay to each of its employeesDcomplainants 06 of hatever is due himDher under + 1&1 #mandatory third year$ and Wa*e ?rder 1 #first and third year$ sub9ect of the cases mentioned in the first W>R>4= hereof< b$ The balance of &06 due to each employeeDcomplainant under + 1&1 #mandatory third year$ and Wa*e ?rder 1 #first and third year$ sub9ect of the cases mentioned in the first W>R>4= hereof shall be the sub9ect of re-openin* andDor ne*otiation by the parties on @uly 1, 1'() for the purpose of reachin* a compromise settlement thereon on terms mutually acceptable. 4*ainst this 06 shall be deducted in full all personal cash advances of every covered employee< c$ ?f and from the aforesaid total amount due every employee, 106 thereof shall be considered as attorney;s fee due 4tty. Rodolfo Capocyan, the same to be deducted from the remainin* &06 and distributed to 4tty. R. Capocyan at the time of the distribution of the remainin* &06. n this connection, 4tty. Rodolfo Capocyan manifest #sic$ that he is authori!ed by the covered employee #sic$ to collect 106 of hatever isDare due them as attorney;s fees and undertakes and binds himself to submit to RC the reuired individual check-off authori!ation ith respect to the 06. e and the herein union assume sole responsibility for and shall hold RC free and harmless from any claim, suit or complaint arisin* from the deduction of this 106 attorney;s fee,; ::: What transpired thereafter is more completely and undisputedly narrated by the =olicitor Aeneral in behalf of public respondent, thus" Thereupon, the parties to the compromise a*reement filed a 9oint %otion to +ismiss ith re9udice prayin* for the dismissal of the same ith pre9udice on the *round that the decision of the National Wa*es Council dated %ay 88, 1'(1 had already been novated by the Compromise 4*reement redefinin* the ri*hts and obli*ations of the parties. Respondent 3nion on November &, 1'(5 countered by opposin* the motion and alle*in* that one of the si*natories thereof-/uklod n* %an**a*aa sa RC is not a party in interest in the case but that it as respondent 3nion hich represented oppositors RC employees all the ay from the level of the National Wa*es Council up the =upreme Court. Respondent 3nion therefore claimed that the Compromise 4*reement is
irre*ular and invalid, apart from the fact that there as nothin* to compromise in the face of a final and e:ecutory decision. ?n November 88, 1'(5, respondent 3nion filed an 3r*ent %otion for 2ien #156 3nion =ervice ee$ callin* attention to a Resolution passed and approved by the 3RCC24-3R 2e*islative /oard on @une 7, 1'(7 declarin* respondent union entitled to a sum euivalent to 156 of the total backpay received by each RC employee from RC as union service fee and reimbursement of e:penses incurred in successfully handlin* the instant case. Respondent 3nion prayed that RC be reuired to deposit ith the Cashier of the National Capital Re*ion, %inistry of 2abor and >mployment an amount euivalent to 156 of the total amount due to the covered employees as union service fee. Copy of this motion as received by the ?ffice of the resident, RC on November 8(, 1'(5. ::: ;4ctin* on the 3r*ent %otion for 2ien, +irector =evero %. ucan issued an ?rder dated November 85, 1'(5 aardin* to 3RCC24-3R and 3R 156 of the total backpay of RC employees as their union service fees, and directin* RC to deposit said amount ith the cashier of the Re*ional ?ffice for proper disposition to said aardees. +espite notice of the ?rder of November 85, 1'(5, and its accompanyin* letter reuestin* the mana*ement of RC to ithhold the 156 union service fee from each employee affected, petitioner paid in full the covered employees on November 8', 1'(5, ithout deductin* the union service fee of 156. n its motion for reconsideration and to set aside the ?rder of November 85, 1'(5, petitioner ar*ued that said ?rder has been rendered moot and academic by the fact that it had already paid in full the aard under the decision of the National Wa*es Council. t proposed instead that 3RCC24 andDor 3R re-direct their efforts at collection to the rank and file employees of RC. t also attacked the uestioned order as null and void ab anitio for lack of 9urisdiction and due process. ?n +ecember 1), 1'(5, respondent 3nion filed a petition prayin* for *arnishment of petitioner;s funds in its depository banks to effect remittance of its 156 union service fee in vie of the payment in full by the latter of the a*es due its covered employees. etitioner moved to dismiss the petition for *arnishment as ille*al, irre*ular and hi*hly anomalous. This as opposed by respondent 3nion.1+ 4t this 9uncture, the record shos that on +ecember 1', 1'(5, said Re*ional +irector issued an order declarin* the decision fully satisfied and liftin* all the *arnishments effected pursuant thereto B#C$onsiderin* that the 4lias Writ of >:ecution dated 8) =eptember 1'(5 in this case had already been fully satisfied. 11 oever, it appears that thereafter, in an order dated %ay &, 1'(), NCR officer-in-char*e Romeo 4. Foun* found petitioner RC and its employees 9ointly and severally liable for the payment of the 156 union service fee amountin* to 78&,(75.)0 to private respondent 3RCC24-3R and conseuently ordered the *arnishment of petitioner;s bank account to enforce said claim. t as his position that althou*h the decision of the National Wa*es Council did not cate*orically reuire payment of the 156 service fee directly to 3RCC24-3R it had acted as the counsel of record of petitioner;s employees, hence said payment could be authori!ed by applyin* suppletorily the provisions of =ection &, Rule 1( of the Rules of Court on attorney;s lien. =aid order further noted that the transaction entered into by petitioner in favor of /%RC-N2 in the *uise of a compromise a*reement, as made ithout the consent of 3RCC24-3R in clear defraudation of the latter;s ri*ht to the 156 union service fee 9ustly due it. 1' 4ctin* on petitioners B?mnibus %otionB seekin*, amon* others, a reconsideration of said order of %ay &, 1'(), hich motion as treated as an appeal, respondent =ecretary of 2abor and >mployment issued an order on 4u*ust 1(, 1'() modifyin* the order appealed from by holdin* petitioner solely liable to respondent union for 106 of the aarded amounts as attorney;s fees, on the rationale that" ... oppositor;s claim for attorney;s fee as the ultimate conseuence of the non-compliance of RC ith Wa*e ?rder No. 1. The RC employees ere forced to avail of the services of oppositor as counsel, RC havin* continuously ithheld payment of said benefit. They ere forced to liti*ate up to the =upreme Court for the protection of their interest. n the case of Cristobal vs. >CC, ,7'8(0 promul*ated ebruary 8), 1'(1, 10 =CR4 ', the =upreme Court ruled that ;the defaultin* employer or *overnment a*ency remains liable for attorney;s fees because it
compelled the complainant to employ the services of counsel by un9ustly refusin* to reco*ni!e the validity of the claim.; 4ttorney;s fee due the oppositor is, thus, char*eable a*ainst RC. 1( ence, the instant petition, basically on the sole issue of hether the public respondents acted ith *rave abuse of discretion amountin* to lack of 9urisdiction in holdin* the petitioner solely liable for Bunion service fee; to respondent 3RCC24-3R. We hold in the ne*ative. The contention of petitioner that the challen*ed order of %ay &, 1'() as issued ith *rave abuse of discretion, for supposedly imposin* an additional obli*ation in the form of attorney;s fees not contemplated in the decision of the National Wa*es Council, is bereft of merit. While it is true that the ori*inal decision of said Council< did not e:pressly provide for payment of attorney;s fees, that particular aspect or deficiency is deemed to have been supplied, if not modified pro tanto, by the compromise a*reement subseuently e:ecuted beteen the parties. 4 cursory perusal of said a*reement shos an unualified admission by petitioner that Bfrom the aforesaid total amount due every employee, 106 thereof shall be considered as attorney;s fee, 1) althou*h, as hereinafter discussed, it sou*ht to ithhold it from respondent union. Considerin*, hoever, that respondent union as cate*orically found by the 2abor =ecretary to have been responsible for the successful prosecution of the case to its ultimate conclusion in behalf of its member, employees of herein petitioner, its ri*ht to fees for services rendered, or hat it termed as Bunion service fee,B is indubitable. The further pretension of petitioner that respondent union is not entitled to attorney;s fee or union service fee because it is not a member of the /ar is both untenable and in disre*ard of the liberali!ed scheme and theory of representation for labor adopted in the 2abor Code. 4s e:plained by the order of the +eputy %inister of 4u*ust 1(, 1'() hereinbefore adverted to E ... The appearance of labor federations and local unions as counsel in labor proceedin*s has been *iven le*al sanction and e need only cite 4rt. 888 of the 2abor Code hich allos non-layers to represent their or*ani!ation or members thereof. t is undisputed that oppositor #private respondent herein$ as the counsel on record of the RC employees in their claim for >C024 under Wa*e ?rder No. 1 since the inception of the proceedin*s at the National Wa*es Council up to the =upreme Court. t had therefore a valid claim for attorney;s fee hich it called union service fee;. .. 15 #>mphasis supplied$. 4s affirmed and further clarified by respondent =ecretary of 2abor and >mployment in his order of %arch 80, 1'(& E ;While the claim for union service fee as initially directed a*ainst the union members, there is no dispute that the claim as basically for attorney;s fee. 4s a matter of fact, RC admitted that the union service fee is ;for Compensation for services rendered by the union. ... 1* We also cannot but look askance and take a ui!!ical vie of the aforeuoted compromise a*reement on hich petitioner anchors its main ar*uments. 4side from the fact that, as already stated, the same as concluded behind the back of private respondent, so to speak, and ith another labor union and a layer neither of hom prior thereto had a hand in the recovery of benefits for the RC employees concerned, there are certain indicia hich cast serious doubts on the motives and actuations therein of petitioner. 4s already stated, as early as %arch 1, 1'(5, private respondent had moved for the deduction of said fee f rom the total backpay aarded in the decision of the Council. t reiterated such claim in its motion for a rit of e:ecution filed on =eptember 10, 1'(5 after this Court had dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner in A.R. No. &017(. etitioner as fully aare of these proceedin*s since it even filed its opposition thereto on =eptember 8, 1'(5, but in the aforestated order of November 85, 1'(5, private respondent as aarded 156 of the total backpay of the RC employees as its union service fee, ith petitioner bein* directed to deposit said amount ith the NCR office.
Fet, on November 8', 1'(5, petitioner, despite timely notice of said order and in total disre*ard thereof, directly paid its employees the full amount of their backpay, ithout deductin* the union service fee. 17 4*ain, as is evident in the aforeuoted provisions of the compromise a*reement, petitioner as bound to pay only 06 of the amount due each employee on November 0, 1'(5, hile the balance of &06 ould still be the sub9ect of rene*otiation by the parties on @uly 1, 1'(). Fet, despite such conditions beneficial to it, petitioner paid in full the backpay of its employees on November 8', 1'(5, i*norin* the service fee due the private respondent. Worse, petitioner supposedly paid to one 4tty. Rodolfo %. Capocyan the 106 fee that properly pertained to herein private respondent, an un9ustified and bafflin* diversion of funds. t tried to e:plain aay such obvious ter*iversation by claimin* that said 106 fee corresponded to the other claims embraced in the compromise a*reement but not the liability under Wa*e ?rder No. 1, an apocryphal contradiction of its contrary admission in ara*raph & of its Reply 18 and the provisions of ara*raph 8#c$ of the compromise a*reement. ?n top of that, the records do not sho any re9oinder or e:planation by petitioner of this *rave revelation and accusation of the =olicitor Aeneral" /ut the spurious and fraudulent character of such disposition made by petitioner is clearly inferable from the circumstances that" ... #8$ there is no such 4tty. Rodolfo Capocyan in the 4ttorney;s Rollo of this Court #=ee Communication from the ?ffice of the /ar Confidant of the =upreme Court dated %arch 1&, 1'() found on pa*e 75' of the record$. 4tty. Capocyan, bein* a mere fictitious character, his ;attorney;s fees; hich included the claim of private respondent, necessarily devolved upon petitioner. ;t ould no appear that petitioner had a secret interest over the 106 fees due and oin* to private respondent and thru the manipulations of petitioner;s a*ents ere *iven the appearance of attorney;s fees; to a certain 4tty. Rodolfo Capocyan. t cannot be denied that by such fraudulent method, private respondent as deprived of its 9ust and laful fees. 19 >ven the employment of the term BnovationB in the compromise a*reement appears to have been dictated by the dubious motive to secure dismissal ith pre9udice of the decision of the National Wa*es Council. or, despite the e:press, albeit improper use of such term, there could have been no valid novation of the prior 9ud*ment for the simple reason that the pre-e:istin* obli*ation thereunder and the ne one sou*ht to be created are not absolutely incompatible. ?n the contrary, the compromise a*reement e:pressly reco*ni!es the respective obli*ations of the parties in said 9ud*ment and precisely provides a method by hich the same shall be e:tin*uished, hich method is, as e:pressly stated in said contract, by installment payments. The contract, instead of containin* provisions incompatible ith the obli*ations in the 9ud*ment, e:pressly ratifies such obli*ations and contains provisions for satisfyin* them. The said a*reement simply *ave the petitioner a method and more time for the satisfaction of said 9ud*ment. t did not e:tin*uish the obli*ations contained in the 9ud*ment, until the terms of said a*reement had been fully complied ith. ad the petitioner continued to comply ith the conditions of said a*reement, it could have successfully invoked its provisions a*ainst the issuance of a rit of e:ecution upon said 9ud*ment. The contract and the punctual compliance ith its terms only delayed the ri*ht of the respondent union to the e:ecution of the 9ud*ment. The 9ud*ment as not satisfied and the obli*ations e:istin* thereunder still subsisted until the terms of the a*reement had been fully complied ith. '+ inally, petitioner cannot invoke the lack of an individual ritten authori!ation from the employees as a shield for its fraudulent refusal to pay the service fee of private respondent. rior to the payment made to its employees, petitioner as ordered by the Re*ional +irector to deduct the 156 attorney;s fee from the total amount due its employees and to deposit the same ith the Re*ional 2abor ?ffice. etitioner failed to do so alle*edly because of the absence of individual ritten authori!ations. /e that as it may, the lack thereof as remedied and supplied by the e:ecution of the compromise a*reement hereby the employees, e:pressly approved the 106 deduction and held petitioner RC free from any claim, suit or complaint arisin* from the deduction thereof. When petitioner as thereafter a*ain ordered to pay the 106 fees to respondent union, it no lon*er had any le*al basis or subterfu*e for refusin* to pay the latter. We a*ree that 4rticle 888 of the 2abor Code reuirin* an individual ritten authori!ation as a prereuisite to a*e deductions seeks to protect the employee a*ainst unarranted practices that ould diminish his compensation ithout his knoled*e and consent. '1 oever, for all intents and purposes, the deductions reuired of the petitioner and the employees do not run counter to the e:press mandate of the la since the same are not unarranted or
ithout their knoled*e and consent. 4lso, the deductions for the union service fee in uestion are authori!ed by la and do not reuire individual check-off authori!ations. '' ?n the fore*oin* considerations, We find no co*ent reason to disturb the order of the =ecretary of 2abor and >mployment findin* petitioner liable for the union service fee of private respondent. W>R>?R>, the order of the =ecretary of 2abor of 4u*ust 1), 1'() is hereby 4R%>+ and the petition at bar is +=%==>+, ith double costs a*ainst petitioner. The temporary restrainin* order issued pursuant to the Resolution of the Court of @une 88, 1'(& is 2T>+ and declared of no further force and effect. =? ?R+>R>+. Melencio$%errera, "aras, "adilla and Sarmiento, ., concur.
