This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-06-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, petitioners have failed to state the ground on which they base their claim for attorney's fees and legal costs, much less submitted evidence in support thereof. Article 2208 of the Civil Code[51] identifies specific circumstances when attorney's fees and expenses of litigation may be recovered. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification. Its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture.[52] Given the dearth of petitioners' allegations, arguments, and most importantly, evidence, on the matter, the Court does not find any basis to award petitioners attorney's fees and legal costs. | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| However, well-settled is the rule that conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts or administrative bodies are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons. The findings of the CA by itself, which are supported by substantial evidence, are almost beyond the power of review by the Supreme Court.[47] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2006-09-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court approved the attorney's fees in the total amounts of P750,000.00 plus 2 % interest for the services rendered by respondent in Civil Case No. 95-224. In this regard, the rule is that the issue of the reasonableness of attorney's fees based on quantum meruit is a question of fact, and well-settled is the rule that conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons. The findings of the Court of Appeals by itself, which are supported by substantial evidence, are almost beyond the power of review by the Supreme Court.[15] Thus, in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court. There are, however, recognized exceptions to this rule, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making the findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellee and the appellant; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of facts are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[16] Exceptions (4) and (11) are present in the case at bar, and so this Court shall make its own determination of the facts relevant for the resolution of the case. | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The decision of the trial court also does not mention the reason for the award of attorney's fees and the award was simply contained in the dispositive portion of the decision. Again, the trial court erred on this score as it must explicitly state in the body of its decision and not only in the dispositive portion thereof the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees.[44] | |||||