Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32772)
Facts:
Government Service Insurance System v. GSIS Supervisors Union, G.R. No. L-32772, April 30, 1979, First Division, Melencio‑Herrera, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arose from CIR Case No. 87-IPA (8) filed by the GSIS Supervisors' Union (GSISSU) against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) seeking a one‑rate salary increase effective January 1, 1969 for supervisors in Pay Classes 7 to 13, comparable to a raise granted to rank‑and‑file employees in Pay Classes 1 to 6 under a collective bargaining agreement with the GSIS Employees' Association (GSISEA‑CUGCO). After hearings the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) issued an Order dated April 29, 1970 directing uniform application of the paid in‑step differentials to eliminate discrimination against supervisors; the CIR en banc affirmed in a Resolution dated May 9, 1970. The GSIS appealed those dispositions to this Court (docketed as G.R. No. L-32018).
During the pendency of that appeal, counsel for GSISSU, Attorneys Cecilio Magadia, Jr. and Filemon L. Uy, filed a contingent retainer and on May 4, 1970 gave notice of an attorney's lien for 15% of any salary increases granted to supervisors. The CIR initially approved the lien in an Order of June 5, 1970, directing that 15% be deducted from any increases actually effected and paid to counsel. On July 24, 1970 the GSIS paid 50% of the in‑step differential to supervisory personnel without deducting the 15% lien; counsel moved for enforcement.
Associate Judge Joaquin M. Salvador granted enforcement in an Order dated July 30, 1970, directing GSIS to deduct 15% from the amount paid July 24, 1970 and from future in‑step differentials and to remit the deductions to counsel (with non‑member portions deposited in court). The CIR en banc denied GSIS's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 24, 1970. GSIS then filed the present appeal to this Court, assigning two errors: (A) that the CIR committed grave abuse by ordering deduction from amounts allegedly paid pursuant to a co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Industrial Relations commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering GSIS to deduct 15% attorney’s fees from the July 24, 1970 payments and from future in‑step differentials on the ground that the July 24 payments were made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement?
- Does the filing of a petition for certiorari under Republic Act No. 5440, Sec. 3 operate to stay execution of the CIR judgment so as to preclude enforcement of the attorne...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)