Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDITHA M. FRANCISCO v. ROQUE CO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180073 2009-11-25	PROSOURCE INTERNATIONAL v. HORPHAG RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SA NACHURA, J.
As a rule, an award of attorney's fees should be deleted where the award of moral and exemplary damages is not granted.[34] Nonetheless, attorney's fees may be awarded where the court deems it just and equitable even if moral and exemplary damages are unavailing.[35] In the instant case, we find no reversible error in the grant of attorney's fees by the CA.
	GR No. 153923 2009-10-02	SPS. TOMAS F. GOMEZ AND ADELAIDA S. GOMEZ v. GREGORIO CORREA CARPIO MORALES, J.
An adverse decision does not ipso facto justify an award of attorney's fees in favor of the winning party. Public policy dictates that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[14] The records reveal none of the circumstances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code[15] to warrant the award of attorney's fees. That a plaintiff is compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect and enforce a claim does not justify the award of attorney's fees.[16]
	GR NO. 142766 2007-06-15	NARCISO AMOROSO v. JUAN ALEGRE TINGA, J.
There are two aspects to the doctrine of res judicata. The first concept of res judicata, known as "bar by prior judgment," is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. This concept is clearly inapplicable to the case at bar since the two cases, although involving the same parties and the same subject matter, have different causes of action. In the second concept, known as "conclusiveness of judgment," issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. Conclusiveness of judgment operates as a bar even if there is no identity as between the first and second causes of action. Under the doctrine, any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.[38] This second concept is likewise inapplicable to the present case.
	GR NO. 146313 2006-10-31	FLORENCIO ORENDAIN v. BF HOMES VELASCO, JR., J.
The first, known as "bar by prior judgment," is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. The second, known as "conclusiveness of judgment," issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[32] A case is barred by prior judgment when the following requisites are present: "(1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is-between the first and second actions-identity of parties, of subject matter, and causes of action."[33]