This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-02-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As to the issue of attorney's fees, it is well settled that the law allows the courts discretion as to the determination of whether or not attorney's fees are appropriate. The surrounding circumstances of each case are to be considered in order to determine if such fees are to be awarded. In the case of Servicewide Specialists, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,[18] the Court ruled: Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows attorney's fees to be awarded by a court when its claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission on the part of the party from whom it is sought.... | |||||
|
2006-10-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We agree with ASIAKONSTRUCT on the matter of attorney's fees. Attorney's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit.[10] Article 2208[11] of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justifications for the award of attorney's fees and its basis cannot be left to speculation and conjecture.[12] Attorney's fee is allowed when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission on the part of the party from whom it is sought. Indeed, COMFAC was forced to litigate to collect payments, but due to lack of findings on the amount to be awarded, and since there is no sufficient showing of bad faith in ASIAKONSTRUCT's refusal to pay, other than an erroneous assertion of the righteousness of its cause, the attorney's fee cannot be awarded against it.[13] | |||||
|
2006-08-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We hold that petitioners did not default in the performance of their obligation. As a rule, demand is required before a party may be considered in default.[25] However, demand by a creditor is not necessary in order that delay may exist: (1) when the obligation or the law expressly so declares; (2) when from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or (3) when demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform. None of the exceptions are present in this case. It is clear from the records that the first and third exceptions are inapplicable. The second exception cannot also be applied in light of our ruling in Servicewide Specialists, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals.[26] In that case, this Court observed that the Deed of Chattel Mortgage required that two conditions should be met before the mortgagee could secure the required insurance: (1) default by the mortgagors in effecting renewal of the insurance, and (2) failure to deliver the policy with endorsement to mortgagee. The mortgagee contended that notice was not required due to the nature of the obligation, and that it was entitled to renew the insurance for the account of the mortgagors without notice to the latter should the mortgagors fail to renew the insurance coverage. To substantiate its claim, the mortgagee relied on the Chattel Mortgage provision that the car be insured at all times. This Court rebuffed the mortgagee's arguments:If petitioner was aware that the insurance coverage was inadequate, why did it not inform private respondent about it? After all, since petitioner was under no obligation to effect renewal thereof, it is but logical that it should relay to private respondents any defect of the insurance coverage before itself assuming the same.[27] | |||||