Attorney’s Fees

NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS, INC./BARBER SHIP

MANAGEMENT LTD. VS. ESMERALDO C. ILLESCAS
G.R. No. 183054, September 29, 2010

FACTS: Respondent Esmeraldo C. Illescas entered into a Contract of Employment

with petitioner NFD International Manning Agents, Inc., acting for and in behalf
of its foreign principal, co-petitioner Barber Ship Management, Ltd. Under the
contract, respondent was employed as Third Officer of M/V Shinrei for a period
of 9 months. When respondent had been on board the vessel for seven months,
he was ordered to carry fire hydrant caps from the deck to the engine workshop,
then back to the deck to refit the caps. The next day, while carrying a heavy
basketful of fire hydrant caps, respondent felt a sudden snap on his back, with
pain that radiated down to the left side of his hips. Petitioner was referred to a
doctor upon arrival of M/V Shinrei at the port of Hay Point, Australia. The
doctor declared that respondent was unfit to work, and recommended that
respondent return home for further management. Upon arrival in the Philippines,
Dr. Alegre advised respondent to undergo diagnostic tests of his lumbo-sacral
spine which revealed multi-level disc dessication, broad-based central and left-
sided posterior disc herniation, L4 L5, with severe canal stenosis. Dr. Alegre
recommended laminectomy and discectomy. Respondent underwent a
laminectomy with discectomy at the St. Luke's Medical Center. Thereafter, he
underwent physical rehabilitation. As his condition did not improve, respondent
sought Medical Center Muntinlupa for the assessment and evaluation of his health
condition and/or disability. It was found that respondent sustained partial
permanent disability and was declared that respondent was unfit to work at sea in
any capacity as a seaman.
Petitioners received a letter dated December 16, 2003 from respondent's
counsel, demanding the payment of disability benefit. Since the parties failed to
arrive at an agreement, the NLRC directed them to file their Position Papers. The
Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision finding respondent entitled to disability
benefit under the CBA. Petitioners appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the
NLRC. In the NLRC Decision, respondent was awarded the disability benefit
under Section 32 of the POEA Standard Contract for Seafarers and not the
benefit being claimed under the CBA. The NLRC also deleted the attorney's fees
awarded to respondent on the ground that there was no unlawful withholding of
payment of benefits in view of petitioners' compromise offer. Upon appeal, the
Court of Appeals justified the award of attorney's fees under Article 111of the
Labor Code and Article 2208 of the Civil Code, as respondent was forced to
litigate and has incurred expenses to protect his right and interest.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is entitled to attorney's fees.
RULING: YES. In regard to the award of attorney's fees, the Court agrees with
the Court of Appeals that respondent is entitled to the same under Article 2208
of the Civil Code.

This case involves the propriety of the award of disability compensation

under the CBA to respondent, who worked as a seaman in the foreign vessel of
petitioner Barber Ship Management Ltd. Even if petitioners did not withhold
payment of a smaller disability benefit, respondent was compelled to litigate to be
entitled to a higher disability benefit. Moreover, in HFS Philippines, Inc. v. Pilar and
Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., the Court sustained the NLRC's award
of attorney's fees, in addition to disability benefits to which the concerned
seamen-claimants were entitled. It is no different in this case wherein respondent
has been awarded disability benefit and attorney's fees by the Labor Arbiter and
the Court of Appeals. It is only just that respondent be also entitled to the award
of attorney's fees. In Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., the Court found
the amount of US$1,000.00 as reasonable award of attorney's fees.