G.R. No. 203328 - Alva vs. High Capacity Security Force, Inc.

Joselito A. Alva (Alva) was hired on November 1, 2003 by High Capacity Security Force, Inc. (High Capacity) as a security guard, initially assigned to Basa Land Power Plant, Rosario, Cavite with a daily wage of Php 330.00.
Alva was promoted to Assistant Security Officer on April 16, 2004 and later to Security Officer with a daily salary of Php 430.00.
On June 5, 2007, Alva was assigned Assistant Officer-in-Charge at HRD-PTE, Ltd., Inc.

While assigned at HRD-PTE, a security guard under Alva’s supervision allowed unauthorized entry of a garbage collection truck; Alva was suspended for one month starting October 21, 2007.
During suspension, HRD-PTE requested his relief citing sleeping on duty and favoritism.
Thereafter, Alva was placed on floating status; on November 23, 2007, High Capacity informed Alva that no officer posts were available and offered duty only as an ordinary guard, which assignment was not given.

Alva filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal and multiple unpaid benefits against High Capacity and its General Manager, Armando M. Villanueva.
He was assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) throughout the Labor Arbiter proceedings.

Labor Arbiter (LA) found illegal dismissal due to failure to reinstate Alva after six months of floating status.
Ordered reinstatement with backwages and separation pay; awarded attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of monetary award.

Modified LA decision: held dismissal was for just cause (sleeping on duty) but lacked due process.
Deleted backwages and separation pay; instead awarded nominal damages (Php 30,000) and monetary claims for unpaid benefits (Php 52,890).
Maintained attorney’s fees award.

Partially granted High Capacity’s motion deleting attorney’s fees, ruling no basis since dismissal was justified and no bad faith was shown.

Court of Appeals (CA) ruled Alva was constructively dismissed due to over six months floating status without new assignment.
Ordered payment of backwages, separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), and unpaid benefits.
Deleted attorney’s fees award on the ground that Alva was represented by PAO.

Alva assailed the deletion of attorney’s fees, arguing entitlement under Article 2208 of the Civil Code and RA No. 9406; contended representation by PAO does not bar attorney’s fees award.
High Capacity argued deletion was proper since Alva incurred no expenses by being represented by PAO and cited Lambo v. NLRC (1999) disallowing fees to PAO-represented litigants.

Whether the deletion of attorney’s fees award in favor of Joselito A. Alva, merely because he was represented by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), was proper.