approved employment contract of respondent subsists despite the so-called new agreement with SAAD.  Consequently, the solidary liability of petitioner with SAAD for respondent’s money claims continues in accordance with Section 10 of R.A. 8042.[12]    Petitioner’s contention that respondent is guilty of laches is without basis.  Laches has been defined as the failure of or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right within reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it.  Thus, the doctrine of laches presumes that the party guilty of negligence had the opportunity to do what should have been done, but failed to do so.  Conversely, if the said party did not have the occasion to assert the right, then, he can not be adjudged guilty of laches.  Laches is not concerned with the mere lapse of time, rather, the party must have been afforded an opportunity to pursue his claim in order that the delay may sufficiently constitute laches.[13]   The doctrine of laches is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims, and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.  The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and since it is an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations.  It cannot be worked to defeat justice or to perpetrate fraud and injustice.[14]   In the instant case, respondent filed his claim within the three-year prescriptive period for the filing of money claims set forth in Article 291 of the Labor Code from the time the cause of action accrued.  Thus, we find that the doctrine of laches finds no application in this case.             The labor arbiter and the Court of Appeals did not err in awarding attorney’s fees to respondent.  It is settled that in actions for recovery of wages or where an employee was forced to litigate and incur expenses to protect his rights and interests, he is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.[15]  However, with regard to Unauthorized Deductions amounting to P171,780.00;[16] we note that the appellate