Lawyerly

GR No. 170134

2015-06-17

BRION, J.

We cannot also award attorney’s fees to the petitioner. Attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party wins a suit.[54] Attorney’s fees cannot be awarded even if a claimant is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his rights due to the defendant’s act or omission,[55] where no sufficient showing of bad faith exists; a party’s persistence based solely on its erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause, does not necessarily amount to bad faith.[56] In the present case, the respondent was not shown to have acted in bad faith in appealing and zealously pursuing its case. Under the circumstances, it was merely protecting its interests.

GR No. 169293

2011-10-05

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TRAVERSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees may be recovered as actual or compensatory damages under any of the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,[28] to wit: Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

GR No. 180257

2011-02-23

EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL

VELASCO JR., J.

In order for Art. 19 to be actionable, the following elements must be present: "(1) the existence of a legal right or duty, (2) which is exercised in bad faith, and (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another."[37] We find that such elements are present in the instant case. The effectivity clause of the COHLA is crystal clear that termination of the COH should be done only upon prior notice served on the CLIENT. This is the legal duty of PCIB--to inform Gonzales of the termination. However, as shown by the above testimonies, PCIB failed to give prior notice to Gonzales.

GR No. 149241

2009-08-24

DART PHILIPPINES v. SPS. FRANCISCO AND ERLINDA CALOGCOG

NACHURA, J.

As regards petitioner's claim for attorney's fees, the Court cannot grant the same. We emphasized in prior cases that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. Attorney's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[42]

GR No. 165969

2008-11-27

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN

REYES, R.T., J.

As to the award of moral damages, We sustain the CA reduction of the award. Moral damages are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. It is not meant to enrich the complainant but to enable the injured party to obtain means to obviate the moral suffering experience. Trial courts should guard against the award of exorbitant damages lest they be accused of prejudice or corruption in their decision making.[24] We find that the CA correctly reduced the award from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.

GR No. 168274

2008-08-20

FAR EAST BANK v. GOLD PALACE JEWELLERY CO.

NACHURA, J.

However, we delete the exemplary damages awarded by the appellate court. Respondents have not shown that they are entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages.[49] Neither was petitioner impelled by malice or bad faith in debiting the account of the respondent company and in pursuing its cause.[50] On the contrary, petitioner was honestly convinced of the propriety of the debit. We also delete the award of attorney's fees for, in a plethora of cases, we have ruled that it is not a sound public policy to place a premium on the right to litigate. No damages can be charged to those who exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously.[51]

GR No. 179337

2008-04-30

JOSEPH SALUDAGA v. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his capacity as President of FEU

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

As regards the award of moral damages, there is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances.[22] The testimony of petitioner about his physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and moral shock resulting from the shooting incident[23] justify the award of moral damages. However, moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The award is not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant, but to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone. It is aimed at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Trial courts must then guard against the award of exorbitant damages; they should exercise balanced restrained and measured objectivity to avoid suspicion that it was due to passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court.[24] We deem it just and reasonable under the circumstances to award petitioner moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00.

GR NO. 169656

2007-10-11

FELSAN REALTY v. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

NACHURA, J.

As to the award of attorney's fees in favor of the respondent, the Court finds that this is not warranted under the circumstances; hence, it should be deleted. An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify an award of attorney's fees to the winning party.[28] The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 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.[29]

GR NO. 168914

2007-07-04

METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. MARGARITA A. ADALA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Respondent likewise cites ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals[7] where this Court held that "[f]or such officers to be deemed fully clothed by the corporation to exercise a power of the Board, the latter must specially authorize them to do so." (Emphasis supplied by respondent)

GR No. 156132

2006-10-16

CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In contrast, this Court finds no sufficient basis to award damages to petitioners. Respondent was compelled to institute the present case in the exercise of her rights and in the protection of her interests. In fact, although her Complaint before the RTC was not sustained in its entirety, it did raise meritorious points and on which this Court rules in her favor. Any injury resulting from the exercise of one's rights is damnum absque injuria.[150]

GR No. 157314

2005-07-29

FAR EAST BANK v. THEMISTOCLES PACILAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The elements of abuse of rights are the following: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[7] Malice or bad faith is at the core of the said provision.[8] The law always presumes good faith and any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill-motive.[9] Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another.[10] Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[11] Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.[12]

GR NO. 140182

2005-04-12

TANAY RECREATION CENTER v. CATALINA MATIENZO FAUSTO+

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioner's claim for moral damages must likewise be denied. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses. It cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system.[58] Petitioner being a corporation,[59] the claim for moral damages must be denied.

GR No. 150763

2004-07-02

RURAL BANK OF MAKATI v. MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI

QUISUMBING, J.

Finally, on the issue of damages, we agree with both the trial and the appellate courts that the bank is not entitled to any damages. The award of moral damages cannot be granted to a corporation, it being an artificial person that exists only in legal contemplation and cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system.[30] There is also no sufficient basis for the award of exemplary damages. There being no moral damages, exemplary damages could not be awarded also. As to attorney's fees, aside from lack of adequate support and proof on the matter, these fees are not recoverable as a matter of right but depend on the sound discretion of the courts.[31]

	GR No. 170134 2015-06-17	ANGEL V. TALAMPAS v. MOLDEX REALTY BRION, J.
We cannot also award attorney’s fees to the petitioner. Attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party wins a suit.[54] Attorney’s fees cannot be awarded even if a claimant is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his rights due to the defendant’s act or omission,[55] where no sufficient showing of bad faith exists; a party’s persistence based solely on its erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause, does not necessarily amount to bad faith.[56] In the present case, the respondent was not shown to have acted in bad faith in appealing and zealously pursuing its case. Under the circumstances, it was merely protecting its interests.
	GR No. 169293 2011-10-05	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TRAVERSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees may be recovered as actual or compensatory damages under any of the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,[28] to wit: Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
	GR No. 180257 2011-02-23	EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL VELASCO JR., J.
In order for Art. 19 to be actionable, the following elements must be present: "(1) the existence of a legal right or duty, (2) which is exercised in bad faith, and (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another."[37] We find that such elements are present in the instant case. The effectivity clause of the COHLA is crystal clear that termination of the COH should be done only upon prior notice served on the CLIENT. This is the legal duty of PCIB--to inform Gonzales of the termination. However, as shown by the above testimonies, PCIB failed to give prior notice to Gonzales.
	GR No. 149241 2009-08-24	DART PHILIPPINES v. SPS. FRANCISCO AND ERLINDA CALOGCOG NACHURA, J.
As regards petitioner's claim for attorney's fees, the Court cannot grant the same. We emphasized in prior cases that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. Attorney's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[42]
	GR No. 165969 2008-11-27	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN REYES, R.T., J.
As to the award of moral damages, We sustain the CA reduction of the award. Moral damages are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. It is not meant to enrich the complainant but to enable the injured party to obtain means to obviate the moral suffering experience. Trial courts should guard against the award of exorbitant damages lest they be accused of prejudice or corruption in their decision making.[24] We find that the CA correctly reduced the award from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.
	GR No. 168274 2008-08-20	FAR EAST BANK v. GOLD PALACE JEWELLERY CO. NACHURA, J.
However, we delete the exemplary damages awarded by the appellate court. Respondents have not shown that they are entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages.[49] Neither was petitioner impelled by malice or bad faith in debiting the account of the respondent company and in pursuing its cause.[50] On the contrary, petitioner was honestly convinced of the propriety of the debit. We also delete the award of attorney's fees for, in a plethora of cases, we have ruled that it is not a sound public policy to place a premium on the right to litigate. No damages can be charged to those who exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously.[51]
	GR No. 179337 2008-04-30	JOSEPH SALUDAGA v. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his capacity as President of FEU YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As regards the award of moral damages, there is no hard and fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances.[22] The testimony of petitioner about his physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and moral shock resulting from the shooting incident[23] justify the award of moral damages. However, moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The award is not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant, but to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone. It is aimed at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Trial courts must then guard against the award of exorbitant damages; they should exercise balanced restrained and measured objectivity to avoid suspicion that it was due to passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court.[24] We deem it just and reasonable under the circumstances to award petitioner moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00.
	GR NO. 169656 2007-10-11	FELSAN REALTY v. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA NACHURA, J.
As to the award of attorney's fees in favor of the respondent, the Court finds that this is not warranted under the circumstances; hence, it should be deleted. An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify an award of attorney's fees to the winning party.[28] The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 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.[29]
	GR NO. 168914 2007-07-04	METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT v. MARGARITA A. ADALA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respondent likewise cites ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals[7] where this Court held that "[f]or such officers to be deemed fully clothed by the corporation to exercise a power of the Board, the latter must specially authorize them to do so." (Emphasis supplied by respondent)
	GR No. 156132 2006-10-16	CITIBANK v. MODESTA R. SABENIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In contrast, this Court finds no sufficient basis to award damages to petitioners. Respondent was compelled to institute the present case in the exercise of her rights and in the protection of her interests. In fact, although her Complaint before the RTC was not sustained in its entirety, it did raise meritorious points and on which this Court rules in her favor. Any injury resulting from the exercise of one's rights is damnum absque injuria.[150]
	GR No. 157314 2005-07-29	FAR EAST BANK v. THEMISTOCLES PACILAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The elements of abuse of rights are the following: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[7] Malice or bad faith is at the core of the said provision.[8] The law always presumes good faith and any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill-motive.[9] Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another.[10] Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence, dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or ill-will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[11] Malice connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.[12]
	GR NO. 140182 2005-04-12	TANAY RECREATION CENTER v. CATALINA MATIENZO FAUSTO+ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner's claim for moral damages must likewise be denied. The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses. It cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system.[58] Petitioner being a corporation,[59] the claim for moral damages must be denied.
	GR No. 150763 2004-07-02	RURAL BANK OF MAKATI v. MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, on the issue of damages, we agree with both the trial and the appellate courts that the bank is not entitled to any damages. The award of moral damages cannot be granted to a corporation, it being an artificial person that exists only in legal contemplation and cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system.[30] There is also no sufficient basis for the award of exemplary damages. There being no moral damages, exemplary damages could not be awarded also. As to attorney's fees, aside from lack of adequate support and proof on the matter, these fees are not recoverable as a matter of right but depend on the sound discretion of the courts.[31]

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. CA