Lorenzo Tangga An v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers
Lorenzo Tangga An v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers
Principles:
In Marsaman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, involving Section 10 of Republic Act No.
8042, we held:
We cannot subscribe to the view that private respondent is entitled to three (3) months
salary only. A plain reading of Sec. 10 clearly reveals that the choice of which amount to
award an illegally dismissed overseas contract worker, i.e., whether his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or three (3) months salary for every year
of the unexpired term, whichever is less, comes into play only when the employment
contract concerned has a term of at least one (1) year or more. This is evident from the
[wording]
"for every year of the unexpired term" which follows the [wording] "salaries x x x for three
months." To follow petitioners' thinking that private respondent is entitled to three (3)
months salary only simply because it is the lesser amount is to completely disregard and...
overlook some words used in the statute while giving effect to some. This is contrary to
the well-established rule in legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a statute, care should
be taken that every part or word thereof be given effect since the lawmaking body is
presumed to... know the meaning of the words employed in the statute and to have used
them advisedly. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat.1
"[i]t is the obligation of the employer to pay an illegally dismissed employee or worker the
whole amount of the salaries or wages, plus all... other benefits and bonuses and general
increases, to which he would have been normally entitled had he not been dismissed and
had not stopped working."2
There are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees the ordinary and
extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation
paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services the former renders; compensation is
“Settled is the rule that in actions for recovery of wages, or where an employee was forced
to litigate and, thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, a monetary award
by way of attorney's fees is justifiable under Article 111 of the Labor Code;
Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules; and paragraph 7, Article 2208
of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's fees is proper, and there need not be any
showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages.
There need only be a showing that the lawful wages were not paid accordingly.” 4
The award of attorney's fees due and appropriate since the respondent therein incurred
legal expenses after he was forced to file an action for recovery of his lawful wages and
other benefits to protect his rights. From this perspective and... the above precedents, we
conclude that the CA erred in ruling that a finding of the employer's malice or bad faith
in withholding wages must precede an award of attorney's fees under Article 111 of the
Labor Code. To reiterate, a plain showing that the lawful wages were... not paid without
justification is sufficient.5