Amalgamated Laborers Association vs CIR

FACTS:
Amalgamated laborers association won a case of unfair labor practice against Binalbagan Sugar Central
Company, Inc. (Biscom). Upon motion to the complainants, CIR set the Chief Examiner to go to Biscom
and compute the backwages. Total net backwages amounted to P79, 755.22. Appeals were made
against this decision. In the interim, Atty. Leonardo C. Fernandez (herein respondent), in the same case,
filed a Notice of attorneys lien over the amount to be rewarded. He alleged therein that he had been
the attorney of record for the said case since the inception of the preliminary hearings of said case up to
the Supreme Court in Appeal, as chief counsel. He claimed that the laborers have voluntary agreed to
give him as attorneys fees on contingent basis 25% of the award. He further averred that this already a
discounted fee out of the plea of the unions president to reduce it from 30% for them to also satisfy
Atty. Jose Ur Carbonell. Meanwhile, CIR decided the appeals still in favor of the petitioner and ordered
Biscom to deposit the amount representing 25% of P79, 755.22 to the cashier of the court to be
awarded and granted to Atty. Fernandez. Atty. Carbonell and ALA appealed from the decision
contending that 1) CIR is bereft of jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes over attorneys fees
averring that a dispute arising from contracts from attorneys fees is not a labor dispute and is not one
among the cases ruled to be within CIRs authority and to consider such a dispute to be a mere incident
to a case over which CIR may validly assume jurisdiction is to disregard the special and limited nature of
said courts jurisdiction. 2) The award 25% as attorneys fees to Atty. Fernandez is excessive, unfair
and illegal. This and a subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
1. Is CIR bereft of jurisdiction over the claim for attorneys fees?
2. Is 25% of the award a reasonable attorneys fee?

RULING:

1. No, court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to effectuate its
jurisdiction. In the absence of such express grant, and in the absence of prohibitive legislation, it
shall also be impliedly granted. In the case at bench, to direct that the present dispute be lodged
in another court as petitioners advocate would only result in multiplicity of suits, a situation
abhorred by the rule. Since the court of Industrial Relations obviously had the jurisdiction to
consider and decide all matters collateral thereto, such as claims for attorneys fees made by the
members of the bar who appear in.
2. Yes. An examination of the record of the case will readily show that an award of 25% attorneys
fees reasonably compensates the whole legal services rendered in the case. This must however
be share by petitioner Atty. Carbonell and respondent Atty. Fernandez. The case has been
remanded to the CIR for the sole determination of shares.

Other Points:
1. Canon 34 of the legal ethics condemns the arrangement wherein union presidents should share
in the attorneys fees. No division of fees for legal services is proper, except with another
lawyer. The union president is not the attorney for the laborers. He may seek compensation
only as a union president.
2. A contingent fee contract specifying the percentage of recovery an attorney is to receive should
be reasonable under all circumstances of e case and should always be subject to the supervision
of the court, as to its reasonableness.