This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that an award of attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification to avoid speculation and conjecture surrounding the grant thereof.[10] Due to the special nature of the award of attorney's fees, a rigid standard is imposed on the courts before these fees could be granted. Hence, it is imperative that they clearly and distinctly set forth in their decisions the basis for the award thereof. It is not enough that they merely state the amount of the grant in the dispositive portion of their decisions.[11] It bears reiteration that the award of attorney's fees is an exception rather than the general rule; thus, there must be compelling legal reason to bring the case within the exceptions provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code to justify the award.[12] | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In this case, petitioner's appeal did not raise only questions of law but also questions of fact. Petitioner assailed not just the trial court's alleged error in applying the law on the nature of relation of the parties, particularly on the rights of DPWH to request withholding of release of payment and of petitioner as depositary bank to comply with such request, but also on the factual basis for the grant of damages (litigation and attorney's fees) in favor of respondent. The discretion of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.[19] | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As a final note, the Court finds no factual and legal basis for the award of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The settled rule is that the matter of attorney's fees cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The same goes for the award of litigation expenses.[26] The reasons or grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the decision of the court.[27] The discretion of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.[28] | |||||
|
2011-06-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As a final point, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the award of attorney's fees by the RTC must be deleted for lack of basis. The RTC failed to justify the award of P50,000 attorney's fees to respondent spouses Baylon. The award of attorney's fees must have some factual, legal and equitable bases and cannot be left to speculations and conjectures.[25] Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,[26] attorney's fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[27] Thus, the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule. Attorney's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[28] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| As to the award of exemplary damages, the Court sustains the CA ruling. This species of damages is allowed only in addition to moral damages such that exemplary damages cannot be awarded unless the claimant first establishes a clear right to moral damages.[9] Here, since GHM failed to prove that it is entitled to moral damages, the RTC's award of exemplary damages had no basis. But the grant of attorney's fees is proper. As the RTC noted, this case has been pending since 1991, or for 19 years now. GHM was forced to litigate and incur expenses in order to protect its rights and interests. | |||||