Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PAULO BALLESTEROS v. ROLANDO ABION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
That the attorney's fees granted to the private respondents did not satisfy the foregoing requirement suffices for the Court to undo them.[121] The grant was ineffectual for being contrary to law and public policy, it being clear that the express findings of fact and law were intended to bring the case within the exception and thereby justify the award of the attorney's fees. Devoid of such express findings, the award was a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.[122]
	GR No. 155830 2012-08-15	NUMERIANO P. ABOBON v. FELICITAS ABATA ABOBON BERSAMIN, J.
Even so, whenever attorney's fees are proper in a case, the decision rendered therein should still expressly state the factual basis and legal justification for granting them.[35] Granting them in the dispositive portion of the judgment is not enough;[36] a discussion of the factual basis and legal justification for them must be laid out in the body of the decision.[37] Considering that the award of attorney's fees in favor of the respondents fell short of this requirement, the Court disallows the award for want of the factual and legal premises in the body of the decision.[38] The requirement for express findings of fact and law has been set in order to bring the case within the exception and justify the award of the attorney's fees. Otherwise, the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.[39]
	GR No. 165828 2011-08-24	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. MACABANGKIT BERSAMIN, J.
An award of attorney's fees has always been the exception rather than the rule. To start with, attorney's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit.[47] Nor should an adverse decision ipso facto justify an award of attorney's fees to the winning party.[48] The policy of the Court is that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[49] Too, such fees, as part of damages, are assessed only in the instances specified in Art. 2208, Civil Code.[50] Indeed, attorney's fees are in the nature of actual damages.[51] But even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, attorney's fees may still be withheld where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a suit other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[52] And, lastly, the trial court must make express findings of fact and law that bring the suit within the exception. What this demands is that the factual, legal or equitable justifications for the award must be set forth
	GR No. 163495 2009-05-08	SAMUEL MALABANAN TINGA, J.
A person who occupies the land of another with the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[36]
	GR No. 178906 2009-02-18	ELVIRA T. ARANGOTE v. SPS. MARTIN MAGLUNOB AND LOURDES S. MAGLUNOB CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Possession in good faith ceases from the moment defects in the title are made known to the possessor by extraneous evidence or by a suit for recovery of the property by the true owner. Every possessor in good faith becomes a possessor in bad faith from the moment he becomes aware that what he believed to be true is not so.[46]
	GR NO. 162366 2006-11-10	FEDERICA M. SERRANO v. SPS. ANSELMO GUTIERREZ AND CARMELITA GUTIERREZ TINGA, J.
Furthermore, the Court finds the award of attorney's fees improper. The trial court must state the factual, legal or equitable justification for awarding the same,[20] bearing in mind that the award of attorney's fees is the exception, not the general rule, and it is not sound public policy to place a penalty on the right to litigate; nor should attorney's fees be awarded every time a party wins a lawsuit.[21] The award of attorney's fees was merely cited in the dispositive portion of the decision without the RTC stating any legal or factual basis for said award. As held in Legaspi v. Sps. Ong:The matter of attorney's fees cannot be dealt with only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The text of the decision must state the reason behind the award of attorney's fees. Otherwise, its award is totally unjustified. [22]