This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| An award of attorney's fees has always been the exception rather than the rule and there must be some compelling legal reason to bring the case within the exception and justify the award.[51] In this case, none of the exceptions applies. "Attorney's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit. The policy of the Court is that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate."[52] "Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still, attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause."[53] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208[56] of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[57] | |||||