This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner is likewise not entitled to attorney's fees. The settled rule is that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate and that not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney's fees.[30] In pursuing its claim on the surety bond, respondent was acting on the belief that it can collect on the obligation of Fumitechniks notwithstanding the non-submission of the written principal contract. | |||||
|
2010-10-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We cannot allow the award for exemplary damages and attorney's fees. It is a requisite in the grant of exemplary damages that the act of the offender must be accompanied by bad faith or done in a wanton, fraudulent, or malevolent manner.[52] On the other hand, attorney's fees may be awarded only when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party, as when the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim.[53] We do not see the presence of these circumstances in the present case. As previously discussed, the petitioners' refusal to pay the change orders was based on a valid ground - lack of their prior written approval. There, too, is the matter of defective construction discussed below. | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Neither do we find any basis for the award of attorney's fees and costs of litigation. No premium should be placed on the right to litigate and not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney's fees.[51] To be entitled to attorney's fees and litigation costs, a party must show that he falls under one of the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[52] This, Pantaleon failed to do. Since we eliminated the award of moral and exemplary damages, so must we delete the award for attorney's fees and litigation expenses. | |||||
|
2007-10-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As to the award of attorney's fees, it is well settled that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate and not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney's fees. The party must show that he falls under one of the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[118] In the instant case, however, the Court finds the award of attorney's fees proper, considering that petitioner MCC's unjustified refusal to pay has compelled respondent Ssangyong to litigate and to incur expenses to protect its rights. | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the general rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest applies in the present case. Article 1311[32] of the NCC is the basis of this rule. It is clear from the said provision that whatever rights and obligations the decedent have over the property were transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and obligations of the decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs.[33] Thus, the heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor. Being heirs, there is privity of interest between them and their deceased mother. They only succeed to what rights their mother had and what is valid and binding against her is also valid and binding as against them. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is not excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the subject matter of the contract.[34] | |||||