This case has been cited 3 times or more.
2015-01-28 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
Attorney's fees "represent the reasonable compensation [a client pays his or her lawyer] [for legal service rendered]."[80] The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule.[81] Specifically in labor cases, attorney's fees are awarded only when there is unlawful withholding of wages[82] or when the attorney's fees arise from collective bargaining negotiations that may be charged against union funds in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties.[83] For courts and tribunals to properly award attorney's fees, they must make "an express finding of fact and [citation] of applicable law"[84] in their decisions. | |||||
2015-01-28 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
In the present case, there is no unlawful withholding of wages or an award of attorney's fees arising from collective bargaining negotiations. Neither did the Labor Arbiter nor the Court of Appeals make findings of fact or cite the applicable law in awarding attorney's fees. That respondents were "constrained to engage the services of counsel to prosecute their claims"[85] is not enough justification since "no premium should be placed on the right to litigate."[86] | |||||
2014-07-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
A petition for certiorari may be filed if the trial court declared the defendant in default with grave abuse of discretion.[9] However, an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[10] |