Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS v. FLORA SAN DIEGO-SISON

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 202989 2015-03-25	COMGLASCO CORPORATION v. SANTOS CAR CHECK CENTER CORPORATION REYES, J.
Finally, as to whether attorney's fees may be recovered by Santos, Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code justifies the award thereof, in the absence of stipulation, where the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest. The pre-termination of the lease by Comglasco was not due to any fault of Santos, and Comglasco completely ignored all four demands of Santos to pay the rentals due from January 16, 2002 to August 15, 2003, thereby compelling Santos to sue to obtain relief. It is true that the policy of the Court is that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate,[21] but it is also true that attorney's fees are in the nature of actual damages, the reason being that litigation costs money.[22] But the Court agrees with the CA that the lesser amount of P100,000.00 it awarded to Santos instead of P200,000.00 adjudged by the RTC, is more reasonable.
	GR No. 184698 2013-01-21	SPS. ALBERTO AND SUSAN CASTRO v. AMPARO PALENZUELA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Bad faith "means breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will."[109] By refusing to honor their solemn obligations under the lease, and instead unduly profiting from these violations, petitioners are guilty of bad faith. Moral damages may be awarded when the breach of contract is attended with bad faith.[110] "Exemplary damages may [also] be awarded when a wrongful act is accompanied by bad faith or when the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner x x x. [And] since the award of exemplary damages is proper in this case, attorney's fees and costs of the suit may also be recovered,[111] as stipulated in the lease agreement.
	GR No. 200868 2012-11-21	ANITA A. LEDDA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CARPIO, J.
Settled is the rule that the trial court must state the factual, legal or equitable justification for the award of attorney's fees.[27] The matter of attorney's fees cannot be stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision.[28] The body of the court's decision must state the reasons for the award of attorney's fees.[29] In Frias v. San Diego-Sison,[30] the Court held: Article 2208 of the New Civil Code enumerates the instances where such may be awarded and, in all cases, it must be reasonable, just and equitable if the same were to be granted. Attorney's fees as part of damages are not meant to enrich the winning party at the expense of the losing litigant. They are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule. As such, it is necessary for the trial court to make findings of facts and law that would bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of such award. The matter of attorney's fees cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision. They must be clearly explained and justified by the trial court in the body of its decision. On appeal, the CA is precluded from supplementing the bases for awarding attorney's fees when the trial court failed to discuss in its Decision the reasons for awarding the same. Consequently, the award of attorney's fees should be deleted.
	GR No. 184215 2011-02-09	OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS v. NESTOR N. BARRETTO PEREZ, J.
For lack of sufficient showing of bad faith on the part of Barretto, we find that the CA, finally, erred in granting Oceaneering's claim for attorney's fees, albeit in the much reduced sum of P30,000.00. In the absence of stipulation, after all, the rule is settled that there can be no recovery of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation other than judicial costs except in the instances enumerated under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[66] Being the exception rather than the rule,[67] attorney's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit,[68] in view of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[69] 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, as here, no sufficient showing of bad faith can be reflected in the party's persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[70]
	GR No. 180564 2010-06-22	JESUS P. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
But this reasoning does not sound right. The grant of immunity in paragraph 3 of the agreement quoted above to petitioner Disini against being compelled to testify in "other cases" against Herminio is quite clear and does not need any interpretation. Where a stipulation in an agreement is clear, its literal meaning controls.[21]
	GR No. 188353 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ Y BALOBAL VELASCO JR., J.
Moreover, if a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages is justified under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code. Besides, the entitlement to moral damages having been established, the award of exemplary damages is proper.[34]
	GR No. 163280 2010-02-02	DORIS U. SUNBANUN v. AURORA B. GO CARPIO, J.
We agree with the appellate court that petitioner's act of ejecting respondent's lodgers three months before the lease contract expired without valid reason constitutes bad faith. What aggravates the situation was that petitioner did not inform respondent, who was then working in Hongkong, about petitioner's plan to pre-terminate the lease contract and evict respondent's lodgers. Moral damages may be awarded when the breach of contract was attended with bad faith.[13]