This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The critical factor in the different modes of effecting delivery which gives legal effect to the act is the actual intention to deliver on the part of the party making such delivery.[17] The intention of the TRB in depositing such amount through DPWH was clearly to comply with the requirement of immediate payment in Republic Act No. 8974, so that it could already secure a writ of possession over the properties subject of the expropriation and commence implementation of the project. In fact, TRB did not object to HTRDC's Motion to Withdraw Deposit with the RTC, for as long as HTRDC shows (1) that the property is free from any lien or encumbrance and (2) that respondent is the absolute owner thereof.[18] | |||||
|
2004-05-25 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule, and must be supported by factual, legal and equitable justifications.[36] In previously decided cases, the Court awarded attorney's fees where a party acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the other party's claims and compelled the former to litigate to protect his rights;[37] when the action filed is clearly unfounded,[38] or where moral or exemplary damages are awarded. [39] However, in cases where both parties have legitimate claims against each other and no party actually prevailed, such as in the present case where the claims of both parties were sustained in part, an award of attorney's fees would not be warranted.[40] | |||||