This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As to the award of attorney's fees, the Court is of the view that the same must be removed. Attorney's fees are in the concept of actual or compensatory damages allowed under the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and absent any evidence supporting its grant, the same must be deleted for lack of factual basis.[43] In this case, the MCTC merely stated that respondent was constrained to file the present suit on account of the petitioners' obstinate failure to settle their obligation. Without any other basis on record to support the award, such cannot be upheld in favor of respondent. 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.[44] | |||||
|
2011-02-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Domondon and Luspo also adopted the December 15, 1998 Order of the OSP[30] and the OMB's June 9, 1999 Memorandum,[31] both submitted in Criminal Case No. 20185 pending before the Sandiganbayan. Criminal Case No. 20185 pertained to the charge of illegal issuance of ASAs in favor of PNP Regional Command (RECOM) in Baguio, wherein Domondon was one of the co-accused. In that Order, the OMB recommended that Domondon be dropped from the criminal charge upon the finding that there was no need for the DBM's prior authority before the ODC could release funds for "personnel services 01." In the Memorandum dated June 9, 1999, approved by former Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, OMB's legal counsel, Sylvia Hazel, made a finding that CCIE purchases could be charged against either Personal Services Fund or Maintenance and Other Operating Expense Fund. | |||||
|
2000-03-16 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| Incidentally, petitioner filed a Manifestation[29] dated June 30, 1999 before this Court, stating that on June 11, 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an Order[30] excluding petitioner from the information in Crim. Case No. 20185. In the said Manifestation, petitioner claims that "...the subject of the above-entitled petition includes Criminal Case No. 20185 as well as Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098."[31] Petitioner further claims that "...a perusal of the records of Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098 would show that the alleged complicity and participation of the petitioner is (sic) the same as in Criminal Case No. 20185; and concludes that "...with respect to petitioner, Criminal Cases Nos. 20574, 20191, 20192, 20576 and 22098 should be treated in the same manner as Criminal Case No. 20185."[32] | |||||