assistance in reviving her husbands application for payment with the US Department of Labor; that private respondent acceded to petitioners request to handle the claim at an agreed attorneys fees of 25% of the amount that may be recovered, thus adopting the arrangement for attorneys fees which petitioner had with her former counsel; that after a favorable decision on petitioners claim, he was paid the amount of US$2,500 only hence he demanded payment of the balance of US$10,836.95 but petitioner refused to pay. Petitioner filed her answer alleging that there was no agreement between her and private respondent as to attorneys fees nor was there any agreement with her former counsel as to the latters attorneys fees; that the amount of US$2,500 which she paid private respondent was more than commensurate to the nature and extent of private respondents services since the re-opening of a closed file of her claim with the Department was not a difficult proceeding. By way of counterclaim, petitioner alleged that she failed to receive her monthly death benefits in checks when private respondent instructed the insurance company to mail these checks to his own address and since private respondent refused to return these checks amounting to US$680, they all became stale; that she was hospitalized by reason of private respondents unfounded demand for attorneys fees and suffered great embarrassment among her relatives. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision on February 26, 1991, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered awarding an additional amount of US$2,500.00 in favor of plaintiff as his attorneys fees in the labor case plus P10,000.00 attorneys fees for his counsel, for this case, without pronouncement as to costs. The counterclaim of the defendant is dismissed for lack of legal and factual basis.i[1] An appeal was interposed before the respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision appealed from.ii[2] Motion for reconsideration of the decision having been denied,iii[3] the instant petition was filed submitting that the Court a quo committed reversible errors of law and acted with grave abuse of discretion: I. IN HOLDING HEREIN PETITIONER LIABLE FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS FEES IN THE HUGE AND UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF US$2,500 ON THE BASIS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED CONCLUSIONS IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF ATTORNEYS FEES. II. IN AFFIRMING THE AWARD OF P10,000 TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT AS ATTORNEYS FEES FOR HIS COUNSEL, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS FINDINGS OF FACT AND LAW IN THE TEXT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT, AND THE FACT THAT SAID AWARD IS STATED ONLY IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION. III. IN REJECTING PETITIONERS COUNTERCLAIMS, WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE MERITS OF THE BASIS THEREOF, NAMELY, AMONG OTHERS, THE PROVEN