Lawyerly

GR No. 178055

2014-07-02

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Petitioners cite the pronouncements of the Court to the effect that where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action proceeds from a different source of obligation, such as tort, malicious prosecution or breach of contract, the regular courts have jurisdiction;[30] that when the cause of action is based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, the case is not cognizable by the labor tribunals;[31] that money claims of workers which fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters are those money claims which have some reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relationship;[32] and that when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience, a case of solutio indebiti arises.[33]

GR No. 148843

2012-09-05

ANTIOQUIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN P. RABACAL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

A plaintiff adjudged to have the better right to possession in an ejectment case cannot be said to have been unjustly enriched by the court's award of reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. As we held in Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty and Development Corporation[22]: CAR COOL asserts that to award damages to USHIO Realty would constitute unjust enrichment at the expense of CAR COOL. CAR COOL claims that it never benefited from its occupation of the property after USHIO Realty's agents entered the property on 1 October 1995 and unlawfully destroyed CAR COOL's office, equipment and spare parts. Because of the destruction of the equipment and spare parts needed to operate its business, CAR COOL asserts that it was no longer possible to continue its business operations.

GR No. 175816

2011-12-07

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. MA. ARLYN T. AVENIDO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

"There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage." [28] There is no unjust enrichment to speak of in this case. There is strong legal basis for the claim of BPI Family against the spouses Avenido for the deficiency of their loan obligation.

GR No. 169293

2011-10-05

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TRAVERSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule and the court must state explicitly the legal reason for such award.[32] As we held in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals[33]: The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[34] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 167004

2011-02-07

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BEN P. MEDRANO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In civil law, DBP's act of keeping the shares delivered by Medrano without paying for them constitutes unjust enrichment. As we held in Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty and Development Corporation[17],

GR No. 190755

2010-11-24

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO ONG

VELASCO JR., J.

We turn then on the principle upon which Land Bank must return Alfredo's payment. Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."[18] There is unjust enrichment under Art. 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[19]

GR No. 174364

2009-07-30

NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. DELFIN S. CATAPANG

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As for the award of attorney's fees, the trial court did not state the factual and legal basis thereof.[8] The transcript of stenographic notes of the lower court's proceedings do not show that respondent adduced proof to sustain his general averment of a retainer agreement in the amount of P200,000.00. The award must thus be deleted.

GR No. 147957

2009-07-22

PRIVATIZATION v. LEGASPI TOWERS 300

PERALTA, J.

We have held that "[t]here is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience." Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that "[e]very person who, through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter, without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him." The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and(2) that such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.[20]

GR No. 167017

2009-06-22

SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI

CORONA, J.

Petitioner, however, correctly argued that the principle of equity did not apply in this case. Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.[18] Positive rules prevail over all abstract arguments based on equity contra legem.[19] Neither is the principle of unjust enrichment applicable since petitioner (who was to benefit from it) had a valid claim.[20]

GR No. 163101

2008-02-13

BENGUET CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

VELASCO JR., J.

There is no unjust enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit.[28] (Emphasis supplied.) Clearly, there is no unjust enrichment in the instant case as the cancellation of the RAWOP, which left Benguet without any legal right to participate in further developing the mining claims, was brought about by its violation of the RAWOP. Hence, Benguet has no one to blame but itself for its predicament.

GR No. 170606

2007-11-23

LCK INDUSTRIES INC. v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We have held that there is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains the money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.[48]

	GR No. 178055 2014-07-02	AMECOS INNOVATIONS v. ELIZA R. LOPEZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioners cite the pronouncements of the Court to the effect that where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action proceeds from a different source of obligation, such as tort, malicious prosecution or breach of contract, the regular courts have jurisdiction;[30] that when the cause of action is based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, the case is not cognizable by the labor tribunals;[31] that money claims of workers which fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters are those money claims which have some reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relationship;[32] and that when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience, a case of solutio indebiti arises.[33]
	GR No. 148843 2012-09-05	ANTIOQUIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN P. RABACAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
A plaintiff adjudged to have the better right to possession in an ejectment case cannot be said to have been unjustly enriched by the court's award of reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. As we held in Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty and Development Corporation[22]: CAR COOL asserts that to award damages to USHIO Realty would constitute unjust enrichment at the expense of CAR COOL. CAR COOL claims that it never benefited from its occupation of the property after USHIO Realty's agents entered the property on 1 October 1995 and unlawfully destroyed CAR COOL's office, equipment and spare parts. Because of the destruction of the equipment and spare parts needed to operate its business, CAR COOL asserts that it was no longer possible to continue its business operations.
	GR No. 175816 2011-12-07	BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. MA. ARLYN T. AVENIDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
"There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage." [28] There is no unjust enrichment to speak of in this case. There is strong legal basis for the claim of BPI Family against the spouses Avenido for the deficiency of their loan obligation.
	GR No. 169293 2011-10-05	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TRAVERSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule and the court must state explicitly the legal reason for such award.[32] As we held in ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals[33]: The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney's fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[34] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 167004 2011-02-07	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BEN P. MEDRANO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In civil law, DBP's act of keeping the shares delivered by Medrano without paying for them constitutes unjust enrichment. As we held in Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty and Development Corporation[17],
	GR No. 190755 2010-11-24	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO ONG VELASCO JR., J.
We turn then on the principle upon which Land Bank must return Alfredo's payment. Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."[18] There is unjust enrichment under Art. 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.[19]
	GR No. 174364 2009-07-30	NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. DELFIN S. CATAPANG CARPIO MORALES, J.
As for the award of attorney's fees, the trial court did not state the factual and legal basis thereof.[8] The transcript of stenographic notes of the lower court's proceedings do not show that respondent adduced proof to sustain his general averment of a retainer agreement in the amount of P200,000.00. The award must thus be deleted.
	GR No. 147957 2009-07-22	PRIVATIZATION v. LEGASPI TOWERS 300 PERALTA, J.
We have held that "[t]here is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience." Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that "[e]very person who, through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter, without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him." The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and(2) that such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.[20]
	GR No. 167017 2009-06-22	SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI CORONA, J.
Petitioner, however, correctly argued that the principle of equity did not apply in this case. Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.[18] Positive rules prevail over all abstract arguments based on equity contra legem.[19] Neither is the principle of unjust enrichment applicable since petitioner (who was to benefit from it) had a valid claim.[20]
	GR No. 163101 2008-02-13	BENGUET CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT VELASCO JR., J.
There is no unjust enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit.[28] (Emphasis supplied.) Clearly, there is no unjust enrichment in the instant case as the cancellation of the RAWOP, which left Benguet without any legal right to participate in further developing the mining claims, was brought about by its violation of the RAWOP. Hence, Benguet has no one to blame but itself for its predicament.
	GR No. 170606 2007-11-23	LCK INDUSTRIES INC. v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have held that there is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains the money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.[48]

CAR COOL PHILIPPINES v. USHIO REALTY