This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-08-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Attorney's fees may be awarded by a court if one who claims it is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect one's interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission on the part of the party from whom it is sought.[41] In this case, petitioner took possession of private respondent's real property without initiating expropriation proceedings, and over the latter's objection. As a result, private respondent was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect her interests over her property. Thus, the appellate court's award of attorney's fees is proper, viz: We find, however, the award of attorney's fees in plaintiff-appellee's favor justified. x x x It is admitted that defendant-appellant DPWH neglected to file the appropriate expropriation proceedings before taking over plaintiff-appellee's land. That their road contractor no longer has any portion to work on except on plaintiff-appellee's property is no justification for the precipitate taking of her lot. It is incumbent upon defendant-appellant DPWH to foresee whether private lands will be affected by their project and to file appropriate expropriation proceedings if necessary. They did not do so. Thus, plaintiff-appellee was constrained to institute the instant suit to protect her rights.[42] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Also, petitioners are not entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses as the right to litigate should bear no premium.[45] In the same vein, the Court likewise denies petitioners' claim for damages against respondents since it has not been shown that the filing of the complaint before the RTC was imbued with bad faith.[46] | |||||
|
2005-08-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J |
||||
| We agree with OCA's recommendation that complainant be sanctioned for filing this unfounded complaint. Indeed, no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate. This right, however, must be exercised in good faith.[21] | |||||
|
2004-07-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Still, petitioner claims that he was not afforded due process so that his dismissal from employment should be declared invalid. This contention deserves scant consideration. The Court of Appeals held that "the records reveal that petitioner was afforded the twin requirements of notice and hearing and was likewise given the opportunity to defend himself before the investigating committee." We find no reason to set aside these factual findings of the Court of Appeals as they are supported by evidence on record. Besides, we may not review the appellate court's findings of fact in an appeal via certiorari,[14] since as a rule, the Supreme Court's review is limited to errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court.[15] Judicial review of labor cases does not go as far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission based their determinations.[16] | |||||
|
2004-05-25 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule, and must be supported by factual, legal and equitable justifications.[36] In previously decided cases, the Court awarded attorney's fees where a party acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the other party's claims and compelled the former to litigate to protect his rights;[37] when the action filed is clearly unfounded,[38] or where moral or exemplary damages are awarded. [39] However, in cases where both parties have legitimate claims against each other and no party actually prevailed, such as in the present case where the claims of both parties were sustained in part, an award of attorney's fees would not be warranted.[40] | |||||