Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CHEVRON

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 199990 2015-02-04	SPS. ROLANDO v. SPS. ROGELIO MENDOZA, J.
With regard to attorney's fees, neither Spouses Rabaja nor Gonzales is entitled to the award. The settled rule is 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.[55] The RTC reasoned that Gonzales was forced to litigate due to the acts of Spouses Salvador. The Court does not agree. Gonzales, as agent of Spouses Salvador, should have expected that she would be called to litigation in connection with her fiduciary duties to the principal.
	GR No. 209605 2015-01-12	NEIL B. AGUILAR v. LIGHTBRINGERS CREDIT COOPERATIVE MENDOZA, J.
As to the award of attorney's fees, the Court is of the view that the same must be removed. Attorney's fees are in the concept of actual or compensatory damages allowed under the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and absent any evidence supporting its grant, the same must be deleted for lack of factual basis.[43] In this case, the MCTC merely stated that respondent was constrained to file the present suit on account of the petitioners' obstinate failure to settle their obligation. Without any other basis on record to support the award, such cannot be upheld in favor of respondent. The settled rule is 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.[44]
	GR No. 208462 2014-12-10	SPS. CARLOS J. SUNTAY v. KEYSER MERCANTILE MENDOZA, J.
Spouses Suntay are not entitled to attorney's fees either. The settled rule is 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.[37]