Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SEC. RICARDO T. GLORIA v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	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. 173264 2008-02-22	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. NITA P. JAVIER AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The following were declared in jurisprudence to be primarily confidential positions: Chief Legal Counsel of the Philippine National Bank;[60] Confidential Agent of the Office of the Auditor, GSIS;[61] Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan;[62] Secretary to the City Mayor;[63] Senior Security and Security Guard in the Office of the Vice Mayor;[64] Secretary to the Board of a government corporation;[65] City Legal Counsel, City Legal Officer or City Attorney;[66] Provincial Attorney;[67] Private Secretary;[68] and Board Secretary II of the Philippine State College of Aeronautics.[69]
	AM NO. RTJ-05-1945 2005-08-25	SPS. JOHN AND ANNABELLE F. CHAN v. JUDGE JANE AURORA C. LANTION TINGA, J.
In Report on the Judicial audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 16 of Laoag City, Presided by Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr.,[11] respondent judge failed to decide four (4) cases within the prescribed period. We appreciated as a mitigating circumstance the judge's diligence and effort to dispose of the pending cases in his sala and imposed the penalty of fine in the amount of P2,000.00 for his failure to decide four (4) cases within the prescribed ninety (90)-day period. In another case, we considered the fact that respondent had the lowest number of pending cases as a mitigating circumstance.[12]