This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court holds that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees in the amount of P200,000.00 to petitioner as it failed to state in the body of its decision the basis for such award.[60] The power of courts to grant attorney's fees demands factual, legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture.[61] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The CA, however, erred in awarding moral and compensatory damages in favor of Ronald and Cesario, as it did not disclose in the body of its decision the factual basis for such awards. Whenever such awards are made, the court must explicitly state in the body of its decision, and not merely in its dispositive portion, the legal reason for the award.[34] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the appellate court awarded damages only in the dispositive portion of the decision, without stating therein clearly and distinctly the factual and legal bases thereof. Thus, following the doctrine enunciated in Pang-oden v. Leonen[35] and Ranola v. Court of Appeals,[36] said awards should be deleted. The grant of damages and attorney's fees requires factual, legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture.[37] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the appellate court awarded damages only in the dispositive portion of the decision, without stating therein clearly and distinctly the factual and legal bases thereof. Thus, following the doctrine enunciated in Pang-oden v. Leonen[35] and Ranola v. Court of Appeals,[36] said awards should be deleted. The grant of damages and attorney's fees requires factual, legal and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture.[37] | |||||