Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MACABANGKIT

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185544 2015-01-13	LAW FIRM OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA v. COA LEONEN, J.
In National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, quantum meruit:[87]
	GR No. 171428 2013-11-11	ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
In National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay,[79] this Court held that: When a right is exercised in a manner not conformable with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and like provisions on human relations in the Civil Code, and the exercise results to [sic] the damage of [sic] another, a legal wrong is committed and the wrongdoer is held responsible.[80]
	GR No. 183952 2013-09-09	CZARINA T. MALVAR v. KRAFT FOOD PHILS. BERSAMIN, J.
Considering that in the event of a dispute between the attorney and the client as to the amount of fees, and the intervention of the courts is sought, the determination requires that there be evidence to prove the amount of fees and the extent and value of the services rendered, taking into account the facts determinative thereof,[43] the history of the Intervenor's legal representation of Malvar can provide a helpful predicate for resolving the dispute between her and the Intervenor.
	GR No. 191247 2013-07-10	FRANCISCO L. ROSARIO v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN MENDOZA, J.
At this juncture, having established that petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and that he filed his claim well within the prescribed period, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the RTC for the determination of the correct amount of attorney's fees. Such a procedural route, however, would only contribute to the delay of the final disposition of the controversy as any ruling by the trial court on the matter would still be open for questioning before the CA and this Court. In the interest of justice, this Court deems it prudent to suspend the rules and simply resolve the matter at this level. The Court has previously exercised its discretion in the same way in National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay:[18]
	GR No. 182976 2013-01-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
An award of attorney's fees has always been the exception rather than the rule. 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.[54] The trial court must make express findings of fact and law that bring the suit within the exception. What this demands is that factual, legal or equitable justifications for the award must be set forth not only in the fallo but also in the text of the decision, or else, the award should be thrown out for being speculative and conjectural.[55]