Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    440 - Montilla Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kornessa Paras
    1) Private respondents Jessie Baydo, Jose Miranda and Danilo Gregas filed complaints against petitioner Enieda Montilla for unpaid wages and illegal dismissal from their jobs as waiters at Montilla's restaurant. 2) Montilla claimed the workers were not actually her employees and were paid on commission, making the employer-employee relationship invalid. 3) The NLRC ruled in favor of the workers, but they later entered a compromise agreement with Montilla and waived their claims, though their lawyer still sought attorney's fees. 4) The Court upheld the validity of the compromise agreement, but denied the request for attorney's fees since no money was awarded to the workers in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    440 - Montilla Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kornessa Paras
    15 views2 pages
    1) Private respondents Jessie Baydo, Jose Miranda and Danilo Gregas filed complaints against petitioner Enieda Montilla for unpaid wages and illegal dismissal from their jobs as waiters at Montilla's restaurant. 2) Montilla claimed the workers were not actually her employees and were paid on commission, making the employer-employee relationship invalid. 3) The NLRC ruled in favor of the workers, but they later entered a compromise agreement with Montilla and waived their claims, though their lawyer still sought attorney's fees. 4) The Court upheld the validity of the compromise agreement, but denied the request for attorney's fees since no money was awarded to the workers in

    Original Description:

    Labor Law

    Original Title

    440_Montilla vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Private respondents Jessie Baydo, Jose Miranda and Danilo Gregas filed complaints against petitioner Enieda Montilla for unpaid wages and illegal dismissal from their jobs as waiters at Montilla's restaurant. 2) Montilla claimed the workers were not actually her employees and were paid on commission, making the employer-employee relationship invalid. 3) The NLRC ruled in favor of the workers, but they later entered a compromise agreement with Montilla and waived their claims, though their lawyer still sought attorney's fees. 4) The Court upheld the validity of the compromise agreement, but denied the request for attorney's fees since no money was awarded to the workers in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views2 pages

    440 - Montilla Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Kornessa Paras
    1) Private respondents Jessie Baydo, Jose Miranda and Danilo Gregas filed complaints against petitioner Enieda Montilla for unpaid wages and illegal dismissal from their jobs as waiters at Montilla's restaurant. 2) Montilla claimed the workers were not actually her employees and were paid on commission, making the employer-employee relationship invalid. 3) The NLRC ruled in favor of the workers, but they later entered a compromise agreement with Montilla and waived their claims, though their lawyer still sought attorney's fees. 4) The Court upheld the validity of the compromise agreement, but denied the request for attorney's fees since no money was awarded to the workers in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    [G.R. No. 71504. December 17, 1993.

    ENIEDA MONTILLA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, JESSIE BAYDO, DANILO GREGAS
    and JOSE MIRANDA, Respondents.

    FACTS:
    This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set aside the Resolution of the public respondent National
    Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) of Manila 1 promulgated on March 1, 1984 which affirmed the Order dated
    April 5, 1982 of the Labor Arbiter Jose Ma. V. Valencia.

    It appears on record that private respondents Jessie Baydo, Jose Miranda and Danilo Gregas were employed as
    waiters on April 7, 1978, April 17, 1978 and October 1, 1978, respectively, by petitioner Enieda Montilla who was
    the owner of a restaurant named "Sa Kabukiran Restaurant" located at Libertad Extension, Bacolod City until their
    dismissal on February 23, 1981.

    Prior to their dismissal or on February 12, 1981, private respondents filed a complaint against petitioner with the
    Ministry of Labor and Employment of Bacolod City for non-payment of living allowances, 13th month pay,
    incentive leave pay, holiday pay, rest-day pay and underpayment of wages which was subsequently amended in a
    Complaint 2 dated February 25, 1981 to include the charge of illegal dismissal against the petitioner.

    On the other hand petitioner maintained that complainants (herein private respondents) were never her
    employees and if they had worked in the Sa Kabukiran Restaurant, they were merely on commission basis, their
    compensation were dependent on whatever sales made which includes all amounts pertaining to their
    allowances and more or less they served only one (1) hour per service to customers during lunch time or dinner in
    the evening.

    That the petitioner did not have any employer-employee relationship with the complainants (herein private
    respondents) because they are actually helping the regular waiters therein from which they share their
    commission and which is not coming from the funds of the petitioner who is not connected with the said
    restaurant and being so they were asked to leave the premises without the necessary clearance from the Ministry
    of Labor and Employment for lack of employer-employee relationship.

    Thereafter, the Assistant Regional Director of the Ministry of Labor and Employment endorsed this case to the
    Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI of Bacolod City and after hearing, issued an Order on April 5, 1982, in favor of
    the complainants.

    On April 23, 1982, petitioner appealed to public respondent NLRC which affirmed said decision in a Resolution 5
    dated March 1, 1984.

    On April 17, 1984, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution 6 dated March
    28, 1985.

    Thereafter, private respondents waived their respective claims on the outcome of this case as evidenced by their
    affidavit in which they received the certain amounts of money as part of their out-of-court settlement.

    On August 21, 1989, the First Division of this Court issued a Resolution 11 requiring the parties to manifest
    whether they are still interested in prosecuting the case.

    On October 16, 1989, private respondents’ counsel manifested that he is still interested in the early resolution of
    this case without which his Motion to enforce the attorney’s lien dated December 28, 1985 would be without
    basis and that private respondents were only forced to accept the amounts offered by the petitioner due to the
    delay in the resolution of this case since they could no longer endure and sustain a long litigation.

    Hence, this petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent NLRC in finding that
    private respondents are employees of the petitioner considering that she is only a lessor of "Sa Kabukiran
    Restaurant" since said restaurant was leased to Eddie Daguinotan from April, 1978 to November, 1978; to Elaine
    Asejo from January, 1979 to December, 1979; to Gilda Montilla from the middle of January, 1980 to July, 1980;
    and to Alice Araneta from February, 1981 up to the time when this case was set for hearing.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the compromise agreement entered into by the private respondents in connection with the
    complaints they filed against petitioner and the affidavits executed of waiver in full settlement of the judgment in
    the NLRC case, amounts to a valid and binding compromise agreement.

    RULING:

    The fact that private respondents entered into a compromise agreement in connection with the complaints they
    filed against petitioner and executed affidavits of waiver in full settlement of the judgment in the NLRC case,
    amounts to a valid and binding compromise agreement. As we held in Periquet v. NLRC: 15

    "Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into
    and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply
    because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an
    unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step
    in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so
    voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
    reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. As in this case."cralaw
    virtua1aw library

    With respect to the Motion filed by the private respondents’ counsel praying that the Court order petitioner to
    pay 10% of the total award granted to the private respondents as his attorney’s lien under the authority of Rule
    VIII, Section 11 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, we hold that no such attorney’s lien could be
    enforced.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

    A charging lien to be enforceable as security for the payment of attorney’s fees requires as a condition sine qua
    non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of such judgment. A lawyer may enforce his right to fees
    by filing the necessary petition as an incident in the main action in which his services were rendered when
    something is due his client in the action from which the fee is to be paid. 16

    The attorney’s lien can be enforced in the same action if his client is awarded a certain sum by the Court. Only in
    cases where no amount is awarded to his client will the filing of an appropriate action be necessary. 17

    Accordingly, counsel for private respondents can still collect his legal fees by filing an appropriate action for
    collection against his clients.

    WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DENIED and the Resolution dated March 1, 1984 of respondent
    NLRC cannot anymore be enforced in view of the valid compromise agreement entered into between herein
    petitioner and private Respondent.

    You might also like