4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly speaking through Justice Brion, is instructive, viz: Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, governs the grant of attorney’s fees in labor cases: ‘Art. 111. Attorney’s fees. – (a) In cases of unlawful withholding of wages, the culpable party may be assessed attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of wages recovered. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to demand or accept, in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages, attorney’s fees which exceed ten percent of the amount of wages recovered.’ Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of its Implementing Rules also provides, viz.: ‘Section 8. Attorney’s fees. – Attorney’s fees in any judicial or administrative proceedings for the recovery of wages shall not exceed 10% of the amount awarded. The fees may be deducted from the total amount due the winning party.’ We explained in PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission that 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 paid for the cost and/or results of legal services per agreement or as may be assessed. In its extraordinary concept, attorney’s fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party to the winning party. The instances when these may be awarded are enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, specifically in its paragraph 7 on actions for recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless the client and his lawyer have agreed that the award shall accrue to the lawyer as additional or part of compensation. We also held in PCL Shipping that Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the extraordinary concept of attorney’s fees and that Article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the award of attorney’s fees. Although an express finding of facts and law is still necessary to prove the merit of the award, there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. x x x We similarly so ruled in RTG Construction, Inc. v. Facto and in Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation. In RTG Construction, we specifically stated: ‘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 elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55699 9/12