View full case

JOSELITO A. ALVA v. HIGH CAPACITY SECURITY FORCE

FACTS:

Joselito Alva, a laborer, was hired by High Capacity Security Force, Inc. as a security guard. He was initially assigned at the Basa Land Power Plant in Cavite and was later promoted to Assistant Security Officer and then to Security Officer. Alva was suspended for one month following an incident where a security guard under his supervision allowed the entry of a garbage collection truck without prior permission. After serving his suspension, Alva was placed on floating status and was not given any assignment or duty by High Capacity.

As a result, Alva filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal and other monetary claims against High Capacity. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding High Capacity guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered Alva's reinstatement with backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission modified the decision and removed the award of backwages and separation pay, while maintaining the award of attorney's fees.

Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, and the NLRC deleted the award of attorney's fees. Subsequently, Alva and High Capacity separately filed Petitions for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Alva and ordered the payment of backwages, separation pay, and monetary claims, but removed the award of attorney's fees.

Alva, dissatisfied with the deletion of attorney's fees, filed a Petition before the Supreme Court, seeking its reinstatement.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the CA erred in deleting the award of attorney's fees.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees.

  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees.

  4. Whether the plaintiff's availment of free legal services from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) disqualifies him from an award of attorney's fees.

  5. Whether the previous case of Lambo v. NLRC is applicable in this case.

  6. Whether the employer unjustifiably deprived the employee of a source of income.

  7. Whether the award of attorney's fees is warranted.

RULING:

  1. The petition is meritorious. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees. The CA erred in deleting the award of attorney's fees. The Court recognized that attorney's fees in labor cases are granted as an extraordinary award to the winning party as an indemnity for damages. Under Article 111 of the Labor Code, attorney's fees may be awarded in cases of unlawful withholding of wages. Additionally, Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows for the award of attorney's fees in various instances, including when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate or incur expenses to protect his interest. The Court further emphasized that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

  2. The plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees. Under Article 111 of the Labor Code, attorney's fees may be awarded in cases where the employer's violation of the employee's rights resulted in the employee being compelled to litigate, in cases for the recovery of wages, and in other cases where the court deems it just and equitable. In labor cases, the withholding of wages need not be coupled with malice or bad faith to warrant the grant of attorney's fees. It is enough that the lawful wages were not paid without justification.

  3. The plaintiff's availment of free legal services from the PAO does not disqualify him from an award of attorney's fees. The PAO is entitled to receive attorney's fees as provided by Republic Act No. 9406, which authorizes the PAO to receive such fees as a token recompense for the provision of free legal services to litigants who have no means to hire a private lawyer.

  4. The previous case of Lambo v. NLRC is not applicable in this case. Lambo was decided when the law governing the PAO was still Executive Order No. 292, which did not grant the PAO the right to an award of attorney's fees. In contrast, Republic Act No. 9406 allows the award of attorney's fees and specifically provides that such fees shall constitute a special allowance for the PAO's officers and lawyers.

  5. The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is modified to integrate the award of attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award.

  6. The employer unjustifiably deprived the employee of a source of income he industriously worked for.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Attorney's fees in labor cases partake of the nature of an extraordinary award granted to the victorious party as an indemnity for damages.

  • Attorney's fees may be awarded in cases of unlawful withholding of wages under Article 111 of the Labor Code.

  • Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney's fees may be recovered in several instances, including when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate or incur expenses to protect his interest.

  • Attorney's fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

  • Employees are entitled to receive the full amount of wages they have earned and should not be unjustly deprived of a source of income.

  • Awarding attorney's fees may be warranted in cases where the employer's actions necessitated judicial intervention and caused the employee to incur legal expenses.