Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175283 2008-03-28	JACKQUI R. MORENO v. SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE-RECOLETOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court cannot likewise award attorney's fees to Moreno in view of the above-mentioned finding of good faith on the part of SSC-R[47]. It is a well- settled principle that even if a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect the claimant's rights, attorney's fees may still 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.[48]
	GR No. 166115 2007-02-02	MCDONALD'S CORPORATION v. MACJOY FASTFOOD CORPORATION GARCIA, J.
As regards the respondent's argument that the petition raises only questions of fact which are not proper in a petition for review, suffice it to say that the contradictory findings of the IPO and the CA constrain us to give due course to the petition, this being one of the recognized exceptions to Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. True, this Court is not the proper venue to consider factual issues as it is not a trier of facts.[12] Nevertheless, when the factual findings of the appellate court are mistaken, absurd, speculative, conjectural, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings culled by the court of origin,[13] as here, this Court will review them.
	GR NO. 158589 2006-06-27	PHILIP MORRIS v. FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION GARCIA, J.
Indeed, the Court is not the proper venue to consider factual issues as it is not a trier of facts.[7] Unless the factual findings of the appellate court are mistaken, absurd, speculative, conflicting, tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or contrary to the findings culled by the court of origin,[8] we will not disturb them.
	GR NO. 144320 2006-04-26	NATIVIDAD ARIAGA VDA. DE GURREA v. ENRIQUE SUPLICO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court finds that the present case does not fall under any of the enumerated exceptions. It is settled that even if a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect its 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.[25] In the present case, even granting that petitioners were compelled to litigate and incur expenses to protect their interests, attorney's fees may not be awarded in their favor because there is no sufficient showing that respondent acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy their claim, in view of his erroneous belief and judgment that he has lawfully acquired the subject property.