This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The award of attorney's fees is deleted because of the absence of any factual and legal justification being expressly stated by the CA as well as by the RTC. To start with, the Court has nothing to review if the CA did not tender in its decision any justification of why it was awarding attorney's fees. The award of attorney's fees must rest on a factual basis and legal justification stated in the body of the decision under review. Absent the statement of factual basis and legal justification, attorney's fees are to be disallowed.[61] In Abobon v. Abobon,[62] the Court has expounded on the requirement for factual basis and legal justification in order to warrant the grant of attorney's fees to the winning party, viz: 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. 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 of the Civil Code came to be recognized. Such fees are now included in the concept of actual damages. | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Next, the rule on the award of attorney's fees is that there must be a justification for the same. In the absence of a statement why attorney's fees were awarded, the same should be disallowed.[36] On this note, after reading through the text of the CA decision, this Court finds that the same is bereft of any findings of fact and law to justify the award of attorney's fees. While it may be safe to surmise that the RTC granted attorney's fees as a consequence of its grant of exemplary damages, such cannot be said for the CA, since the same deleted the award of exemplary damages after finding that petitioner Aסalucas was not grossly negligent. The CA did not explain why it was still awarding attorney's fees to respondents, therefore, such an award must be deleted. | |||||