Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAZ FORES v. IRENEO MIRANDA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 202989 2015-03-25	COMGLASCO CORPORATION v. SANTOS CAR CHECK CENTER CORPORATION REYES, J.
Finally, as to whether attorney's fees may be recovered by Santos, Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code justifies the award thereof, in the absence of stipulation, where the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest. The pre-termination of the lease by Comglasco was not due to any fault of Santos, and Comglasco completely ignored all four demands of Santos to pay the rentals due from January 16, 2002 to August 15, 2003, thereby compelling Santos to sue to obtain relief. It is true that the policy of the Court is that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate,[21] but it is also true that attorney's fees are in the nature of actual damages, the reason being that litigation costs money.[22] But the Court agrees with the CA that the lesser amount of P100,000.00 it awarded to Santos instead of P200,000.00 adjudged by the RTC, is more reasonable.
	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
Like the actual and moral damages, the P150,000.00, plus P1,500.00 per appearance, granted as attorney's fees were factually unwarranted and devoid of legal basis. The general rule is that a successful litigant cannot recover attorney's fees as part of the damages to be assessed against the losing party because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[114] Prior to the effectivity of the present Civil Code, indeed, such fees could be recovered only when there was a stipulation to that effect. It was only under the present Civil Code that the right to collect attorney's fees in the cases mentioned in Article 2208[115] of the Civil Code came to be recognized.[116] Nonetheless, with attorney's fees being allowed in the concept of actual damages,[117] their amounts must be factually and legally justified in the body of the decision and not stated for the first time in the decretal portion.[118] Stating the amounts only in the dispositive portion of the judgment is not enough;[119] a rendition of the factual and legal justifications for them must also be laid out in the body of the decision.[120]
	GR No. 155830 2012-08-15	NUMERIANO P. ABOBON v. FELICITAS ABATA ABOBON BERSAMIN, J.
As to attorney's fees, the general rule is that such fees cannot be recovered by a successful litigant as part of the damages to be assessed against the losing party because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[31] Indeed, prior to the effectivity of the present Civil Code, such fees could be recovered only when there was a stipulation to that effect. It was only under the present Civil Code that the right to collect attorney's fees in the cases mentioned in Article 2208[32] of the Civil Code came to be recognized.[33] Such fees are now included in the concept of actual damages.[34]
	GR No. 156448 2011-02-23	SPS. MOISES AND CLEMENCIA ANDRADA v. PILHINO SALES CORPORATION BERSAMIN, J.
It is well accepted in this jurisdiction that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate and that not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney's fees.[10] Indeed, before the effectivity of the new Civil Code, such fees could not be recovered in the absence of a stipulation.[11] It was only with the advent of the new Civil Code that the right to collect attorney's fees in the instances mentioned in Article 2208 was recognized,[12] and such fees are now included in the concept of actual damages.[13] One such instance is where the defendant is guilty of gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim.[14] This is a corollary of the general principle expressed in Article 19 of the Civil Code that everyone must, in the performance of his duties, observe honesty and good faith and the rule embodied in Article 1170 that anyone guilty of fraud (bad faith) in the performance of his obligation shall be liable for damages.
	GR No. 173333 2008-08-13	LUCIA MAGALING v. PETER ONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In order to pierce the veil of corporate fiction, for reasons of negligence by the director, trustee or officer in the conduct of the transactions of the corporation, such negligence must be gross. Gross negligence is one that is characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected;[47] and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Parenthetically, gross or willful negligence could amount to bad faith.[48]
	GR NO. 141761 2006-07-28	BANKARD v. DR. ANTONIO NOVAK FELICIANO PUNO, J.
Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. (emphasis added) Under the foregoing, moral damages may be recovered in culpa contractual where the defendant acted in bad faith or with malice in the breach of the contract.[8] Malice or bad faith implies moral obliquity or a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose.[9] However, a conscious or intentional design need not always be present since negligence may occasionally be so gross as to amount to malice or bad faith.[10] Bad faith, in the context of Art. 2220 of the Civil Code, includes gross negligence.[11] Thus, we have held in a number of cases that moral damages may be awarded in culpa contractual or breach of contract when the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or is guilty of gross negligence amounting to bad faith, or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations.[12]
	GR No. 122039 2000-05-31	VICENTE CALALAS v. CA MENDOZA, J.
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract for it is not one of the items enumerated under Art. 2219 of the Civil Code.[5] As an exception, such damages are recoverable: (1) in cases in which the mishap results in the death of a passenger, as provided in Art. 1764, in relation to Art. 2206(3) of the Civil Code; and (2) in the cases in which the carrier is guilty of fraud or bad faith, as provided in Art. 2220.[6]