This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-10-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is an accepted doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule, and counsel's fees 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 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. In all events, the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision, and not only in the decretal portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees.[28] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, in the more recent cases of ABS-CBN Corp. v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[37] and Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC-BCCM),[38] the Court held that the statements in Manero and Mambulao were mere obiter dicta, implying that the award of moral damages to corporations is not a hard and fast rule. Indeed, while the Court may allow the grant of moral damages to corporations, it is not automatically granted; there must still be proof of the existence of the factual basis of the damage and its causal relation to the defendant's acts. This is so because moral damages, though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.[39] | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The claim for moral damages deserves short shrift. The claimant in this case is the Republic of the Philippines, a juridical person. We explained in Filipinas Broadcasting v. Ago Medical & Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC-BCCM):[82] | |||||
|
2006-09-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Now, on the propriety of the trial court's award of attorney's fees for respondent. While Article 2208 of the Civil Code[13] allows attorney's fees to be awarded if the claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is sought, there must be a showing that the losing party acted willfully or in bad faith and practically compelled the claimant to litigate and incur litigation expenses. In view of the declared policy of the law that awards of attorney's fees are the exception rather than the rule, it is necessary for the trial court to make express findings of facts and law that would bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of such award.[14] In Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC-BCCM), [15] this Court held that:It is an accepted doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule, and counsel's fees 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 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. In all events, the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision, and not only in the decretal portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees.[16] Thus, the matter of attorney's fees cannot be touched upon only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The text itself must state the reasons why attorney's fees are being awarded. We have pored over the records and found no factual or legal justification for the award of attorney's fees. While the trial court made this award in the dispositive portion, it did not justify the same in the ratio decidendi of the decision, where the trial court stated: | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners raised the issue of G.V.T.'s lack of legal personality to be a party in a civil action as a defense in their Answer with Counterclaims and, thus, are not estopped from raising this issue before the CA or this Court.[11] It is true that G.V.T. Engineering Services, being a sole proprietorship, is not vested with a legal personality to bring suit or defend an action in court. A perusal of the records of the present case shows that respondent's complaint filed with the trial court as well as its Appellee's Brief submitted to the CA and its Comment filed before this Court are all captioned as "G.V.T. Engineering Services acting through its owner/manager Gerino V. Tactaquin". In fact, the first paragraph of the complaint refers to G.V.T. as the plaintiff. On this basis, it can be inferred that G.V.T. was the one which filed the complaint and that it is only acting through its proprietor. However, subsequent allegations in the complaint show that the suit is actually brought by Tactaquin. Averments therein refer to the plaintiff as a natural person. In fact, one of the prayers in the complaint is for the recovery of moral damages by reason of "his sufferings, mental anguish, moral shock, sleepless nights, serious anxiety and besmirch[ed] reputation as an Engineer and Contractor." It is settled that, as a rule, juridical persons are not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings, serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock.[12] From these, it can be inferred that it was actually Tactaquin who is the complainant. As such, the proper caption should have been "Gerino Tactaquin doing business under the name and style of G.V.T. Engineering Services", as is usually done in cases filed involving sole proprietorships. Nonetheless, these are matters of form and the Court finds the defect merely technical, which does not, in any way, affect its jurisdiction. | |||||