Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Custodio v CA
There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the
illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which
results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or compensation
awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage without injury
in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation
of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria.
In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he
complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of
duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiffa concurrence of injury to
the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying
basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was
injured in contemplation of law.
2. Ong v CA (1999)
Actual damages are such compensation or damages for an
injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had
been before he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses
that are actually sustained and susceptible of measurement. Except
as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has duly proven.
ACTUAL DAMAGES
1. Algarra v Sandejas
Facts: Lucio Algarra sold products of a distillery on a 10% commission and
made an average of P50 per month. He had about twenty regular customers
who, it seems, purchased in small quantities, necessitating regular and
frequent deliveries. He was injured. He had to spend for medical expenses,
stopped work for 2 months, and also lost 16/20 of his customers.
Held:
i. Purpose: The PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN AWARDING ACTUAL DAMAGES is to
repair the wrong that has been done, to compensate for the injury inflicted,
and not to impose a penalty. Actual damages are not dependent on nor
graded by the intent with which the wrongful act is done. In other words,
actual damages are compensatory only. They proceed from a sense of
natural justice, and are designed to repair that of which one has been
deprived by the wrong of another.
The party claiming damages must establish by competent evidence the
amount of such damages, and courts can not give judgment for a
greater amount than those actually proven.
ii. Scope: Actual damages include not only loss already suffered, but loss
of profits which may not have been realized. Plagiarizing from Sanchez
Roman, he says that the indemnity comprises, not only the value of the
loss suffered, but also that of the prospective profit that was not
realized, and the obligation of the debtor in GOOD FAITH is limited to
such losses and damages as were foreseen or might have been
foreseen at the time the obligation was incurred and which are a
necessary consequence of his failure of fulfillment. Losses and damages
under such limitations and frustrated profits must, therefore, be proved
directly by means of the evidence the law authorizes.
The case at bar involves actual incapacity of the plaintiff for 2 months,
and loss of the greater portion of his business. As to the damages resulting
from the actual incapacity of the plaintiff to attend to his business there is
no question. They are, of course, to be allowed on the basis of his earning
capacity, which in this case, is P50 per month. The difficult question in the
present case is to determine the damage which has resulted to his business
through his enforced absence.
(NB: Atty. Lopez here differentiated injury to person and injury to
business).
iii. Amount of damages for injury to his business
ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED
While certainty is an essential element of an award of damages, it
need not be a mathematical certainty. (NB: Sir said that fact of loss must
be certain, but amount need not be.) As to the ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED in
"estimating the damage done to plaintiff's business by reason of his
accident, this same author, citing numerous authorities, has the following to
say: It is proper to consider the business the plaintiff is engaged in, the
nature and extent of such business, the importance of his personal
oversight and superintendence in conducting it, and the consequent
loss arising from his inability to prosecute it.
The business of the present plaintiff required his immediate supervision
of all the profits derived therefrom were wholly due to his own
exertions. Nor are his damages confined to the actual time during which he
was physically incapacitated for work, as is the case of a person working for
a stipulated daily or monthly or yearly salary.
GENERAL RULE: As to persons whose labor is thus compensated and who
completely recover from their injuries, the rule may be said to be that their
damages are confined to the duration of their enforced absence from their
occupation.
EXCEPT (as in this case): But the present plaintiff could not resume his
work at the same profit he was making when the accident occurred.
He had built up an established business which included some 20 regular
customers. These customers represented to him a regular income. In
addition to this he made sales to other people who were not so regular in
their purchases. But he could figure on making at least some sales each
month to others besides his regular customers.
Taken as a whole his average monthly income from his business was about
P50. As a result of the accident, he lost all but 4 of his regular
customers and his receipts dwindled down to practically nothing.
Other agents had invaded his territory, and upon becoming physically
able to attend to his business, he found that it would be necessary to start
with practically no regular trade, and either win back his old customers from
his competitors or else secure others. During this process of re-establishing
his patronage his income would necessarily be less than he was making at
the time of the accident and would continue to be so for some time. Of
course, if it could be mathematically determined how much less he
will earn during this rebuilding process than he would have earned if
the accident had not occurred, that would be the amount he would be
entitled to in this action. But manifestly this ideal compensation cannot
be ascertained. The question therefore resolves itself into whether this
damage to his business can be so nearly ascertained as to justify a court in
awarding any amount whatever.
When it is shown that a plaintiff's business is a going concern with a
fairly steady average profit on the investment, it may be assumed that
had the interruption to the business through defendant's wrongful
act not occurred, it would have continued producing this average
income "so long as is usual with things of that nature.
When in addition to the previous average income of the business it is
further shown what the reduced receipts of the business are
immediately after the cause of the interruption has been removed,
there can be no manner of doubt that a loss of profits has resulted
from the wrongful act of the defendant. (causation)
In the present case, we not only have the value of plaintiff's business to him
just prior to the accident, but we also have its value to him after the
accident. At the trial, he testified that his wife had earned about 15 pesos
during the 2 months that he was disabled. That this almost total
destruction of his business was directly chargeable to defendant's wrongful
act, there can be no manner of doubt; and the mere fact that the loss can
not be ascertained with absolute accuracy, is no reason for denying
plaintiff's claim altogether.
Thus, in this case, he was awarded actual damages for (1) the medical
expenses, (2) damages to person (p100, or the lost income of p50 for two
months) and (3) an amount for the damages to his business.
NB: Facts to consider in ascertaining loss to business: 1) nature of business,
2) supervision by plaintiff over it, 3) losses due to absence.
Extensive discussion from Amjur:
a. The Civil Code requires that the defendant repair the damage caused by
his fault or negligence. No distinction is made therein between damage
caused maliciously and intentionally and damages caused through mere
negligence in so far as the civil liability of the wrongdoer in concerned. Nor
is the defendant required to do more than repair the damage done, or, in
other words, to put the plaintiff in the same position, so far as pecuniary
compensation can do so, that he would have been in had the damage not
been inflicted. In this respect there is a notable difference between the two
systems.
Thus the Court deletes the lower courts award of actual damages.
Nonetheless, since entitlement of the same is shown under the facts of the
case, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded in
lieu of actual damages to the heirs of the victim pursuant to Article 2224 of
the Civil Code which provides that temperate damages may be recovered
when the court finds that pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
4. People v Arrelano
i. While the heirs of the victim did not expressly claim an amount
representing the deceaseds loss of earning capacity nor present evidence
thereon, such failure does not necessarily prevent recovery of damages
considering that there is sufficient basis on record upon which the court may
determine a reasonable and fair estimate of such damages.
Ii. The amount of loss of earning capacity is based mainly on two factors.
These are (1) the number of years of which the damages shall be computed;
and (2) the rate at which the losses sustained by the respondent should be
fixed.
Factor number one in this ruling shall be computed by using the formula
based on the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or 2/3 x [80 - age of
the victim at the time of death] = life expectancy in terms of years.
Factor number two is arrived at by multiplying the life expectancy by the
earnings of the deceased. As has been settled, the computation of the rate of
loss of earnings should be based on the net earnings.
In this case, Andres Ventura was eighteen years of age at the time of his
death with a life expectance of 41 years. The undisputed claim of the
victims mother was that Andres was employed as a laborer at the Victory
Rice Mill at the rate of P100.00 a day, which was, likewise, admitted by the
defense. The crime was committed on a Sunday after the victim and
his co-workers had finished their work for the day. The victim should,
therefore, be presumed to have worked everyday including Sundays or
rest days, special days and regular holidays. As such, under the 1999
Handbook on Workers Statutory Monetary Benefits outlining the minimum
legal requirements concerning workers monetary and nonmonetary, the
victim is deemed to have worked a total of 391.50 days a year with total
wages in the amount of P39,150.00 per annum (P100/day for 391.50 days).
One half of this amount would be considered as his necessary living
expenses.
III. Likewise, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 is automatically
granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence other than
the fact of the commission of the crime.
The heirs of the victim should also be awarded actual damages in the total
amount of P13,000.00 as the defense admitted that the victims family
incurred funeral expenses of P6,000.00 and medical expenses of P7,000.00.
Ordinarily, receipts should support claims of actual damages.
However, since the defense did not contest that claim, it should be
granted.
5. Adrian Wilson v TMX
Actual damages puts the claimant in the position in which he had been
before he was injured. The award thereof must be based on the evidence
presented, not on the personal knowledge of the court; and certainly not on
flimsy, remote, speculative and nonsubstantial proof. Under the Civil Code,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss
suffered by him as he has duly proved.
6. GQ Garments v Miranda
i. actual damages include all the natural and probable consequences of the
act or omission complained of, classified as one (1) for the loss of what a
person already possesses (dano emergente) and the other, (2) for the failure
to receive, as a benefit, that which would have pertained to him (lucro
cesante)
ii. The claimants are not, however, mandated to prove damages in any
specific or certain amount in order to recover damages for a substantial
amount. When the existence of a loss is established, absolute
certainty as to its amount is not required. The amount of the
damages should be determined with reasonable certainty
7. Justiva v Gustilo
Doctrine: No need to allege claim for damages in pleadings if it is put in
issue in the course of the trial.
Is the award of actual damages proper? While the prayer by the
respondents in their Answer mentions only exemplary damages, moral
damages and attorneys fees, therein also is a plea for such further relief x
x x as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable. This prayer may
include actual damages, if and when they are proved. It is to be observed
that in the course of the trial, defendants introduced evidence of actual
damages; yet petitioners failed to object to such presentation. Consequently,
the unalleged but proved matter of actual damages may be considered by
the court. The trial judge mentioned such damages. And the Court of
Appeals, without going into specifics, approved the award, and declared
explicitly that the evidence sustained it. We affirm the appellate courts
assessment of actual damages.
8. De Guia v The Manila Electric
Although in case like this the defendant must answer for the consequences
of the negligence of its employee, the court has the power to moderate
liability according to the circumstances of the case. An employer who has in
fact displayed due diligence in choosing and instructing his servants is
entitled to be considered a debtor in good faith, within the meaning of
article 1107 of the same Code. Construing these two provisions together,
applying them to the facts of this case, it results that the defendant's liability
is limited to such damages as might, at the time of the accident, have been
reasonably foreseen as a probable consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted upon the plaintiff and which were in fact a necessary result of those
injuries. There is nothing novel in this proposition, since both the civil and
the common law are agreed upon the point that the damages ordinarily
recoverable for the breach of a contractual obligation, against a person who
has acted in good faith, are such as can reasonably be foreseen at the time
the obligation is contracted.
9. Lim v. CA
Facts: Owner and operator of a jeepney without a certificate of public
convenience (kabit system) figured in an accident with a truck owned by lim.
Held: 1) The thrust of the law in enjoining the kabit system is not so much as
to penalize the parties but to identify the person upon whom responsibility
may be fixed in case of an accident with the end view of protecting the
riding public. The policy, therefore, loses its force if the public at large is not
deceived, much less involved.
2) Damages its limits: It is a fundamental principle in the law on damages
that a defendant cannot be held liable in damages for more than the
actual loss which he has inflicted and that a plaintiff is entitled to no
more than the just and adequate compensation for the injury
suffered. The law will not put him in a position better than where he should
be in had not the wrong happened.
3) Damages its extent: Petitioners are at best reminded that
indemnification for damages comprehends not only the value of the
loss suffered but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to
obtain. In other words, indemnification for damages is not limited to
damnum emergens or actual loss but extends to lucrum cessans or the
amount of profit lost.
Case at bar: Had Gonzales jeepney not met an accident, it could
reasonably be expected that it would have continued earning from
the business in which it was engaged. The award therefore of
P236,000.00 as compensatory damages is not beyond reason nor
speculative as it is based on a reasonable estimate of the total
damage suffered by Gonzales, i.e. damage wrought upon his jeepney and
the income lost from his transportation business.
4) Legal interest on unliquidated damages when imposed: However, we are
constrained to depart from the conclusion of the lower courts that
to this point.
2) Rule: The stranger cannot become more extensively liable in damages
for the nonperformance of the contract than the party in whose behalf
he intermeddles.
a. In this case, Teodora was the one directly liable/ obligor, thus,
to determine the liability of the interferer (corporation), the
court studied the damages attributable to the original obligor.
3) Rule on unlawful detention of property:
a. Now, what is the measure of damages for the wrongful
detention of real property by the vender after the time has
come for him to place the purchaser in possession? The
damages ordinarily and normally recoverable against a vendor
for failure to deliver land which he has contracted to deliver is
the value of the use and occupation of the land for the time
during which it is wrongfully withheld. The rule that the
measure of damages for the wrongful detention of land is
normally to be found in the value of use and occupation is, we
believe, one of the things that may be considered certain in the
law almost as well settled, indeed, as the rule that the measure
of damages for the wrongful detention of money is to be found
in the interest.
4) Ordinary vs. Special damages - The damages recoverable in case of
the breach of a contract are two sorts, namely, (1) the ordinary,
natural, and in a sense necessary damage; and (2) special damages.
a. Ordinary damages is found in all breaches of contract
where there are no special circumstances to distinguish
the case specially from other contracts. The consideration
paid for an unperformed promise is an instance of this sort of
damage. In all such cases the damages recoverable are such as
naturally and generally would result from such a breach,
according to the usual course of things. In cases involving
only ordinary damage no discussion is ever indulged as to
whether that damage was contemplated or not. This is
conclusively presumed from the immediateness and
inevitableness of the damage, and the recovery of such damage
follows as a necessary legal consequence of the breach.
Ordinary damage is assumed as a matter of law to be within the
contemplation of the parties.
b. Special damage, on the other hand, is such as follows less
directly from the breach than ordinary damage. It is only found
in case where some external condition, apart from the
actual terms to the contract exists or intervenes, as it
were, to give a turn to affairs and to increase damage in a way
that the promisor, without actual notice of that external
condition, could not reasonably be expected to foresee. Before
such damage can be recovered the plaintiff must show
that the particular condition which made the damage a
possible and likely consequence of the breach was known
to the defendant at the time the contract was made.
actual damages in behalf of their child, and also separately for themselves,
and also moral damages.
Held:
i. MRR proved not liable for QD.
ii. LTB liable for B of K. But,
a. Actual damages in behalf of victim Yes
b. Actual damages for the parents No
c. Moral damages No
Discussion on Damages:
i. Actual damages in behalf of victim
The court awarded actual damages based on the medical expenses and also
the future income he might receive (value of which testified to by an expert
witness who is a doctor).
Upon this premise it claims that only the actual damages suffered by
Edgardo Cariaga consisting of medical, hospital and other expenses in the
total sum of P17,719.75 are within this category. We are of the opinion,
however, that the income which Edgardo Cariaga could earn if he
should finish the medical course and pass the corresponding board
examinations must be deemed to be within the same category
because they could have reasonably been foreseen by the parties at
the time he boarded the bus No. 133 owned and operated by the LTB.
As regards the income that he could possibly earn as a medical practitioner,
it appears that, according to Dr. Amado Doria, a witness for the LTB, the
amount of P300.00 could easily be expected as the minimum monthly
income
(Query: What if they filed a QD case versus LTB? Will LTB be liable for the
future income he could have earned as a doctor even if no reasonably
foreseen?)
ii. Moral damages disallowed
Predicated on the fact that the suit against LTB was for breach of contract of
carriage. Moral damages, if ever, could be awarded, only in QD suits.
iii. Actual damages for parents - disallowed
The claim made by said spouses for actual and compensatory damages is
likewise without merits. As held by the trial court, in so far as the LTB is
concerned, the present action is based upon a breach of contract of
carriage to which said spouses were not a party, and neither can they
premise their claim upon the negligence or quasi-delict of the LTB
for the simple reason that they were not themselves injured as a
result of the collision between the LTB bus and train owned by the Manila
Railroad Company.
14. OMC Carriers Inc v. Nabua
A first year IE student died due to a collision. Parents sued for damages. The
damages awarded were questioned as follows:
i. RTC awarded 60k for death indemnity. The court modified this as only
50k is the amount established in jurisprudence as the proper
amount.
ii. Attorneys fees: LCs awarded attorneys fees but did not state reason
therefor. The SC held: The CA did not explain why it was still
awarding attorneys fees to respondents, therefore, such an award
must be deleted.
iii. SC upheld the award of moral damages: It must be stressed that
moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense
of the defendant. They are awarded to allow the plaintiff to obtain
means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the
moral suffering he/she has undergone due to the defendants
culpable action and must, perforce, be proportional to the
suffering inflicted. Thus, given the circumstances of the case at
bar, an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper.
iv. ACTUAL DAMAGES
a. Must be substantiated by receipts: For one to be entitled to
actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of
loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon
competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the
injured party. Actual damages are such compensation or
damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the
position in which he had been before he was injured. They
pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and
susceptible of measurement. To justify an award of actual
damages, there must be competent proof of the actual amount
of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly
supported by receipts.
Based on the foregoing, the RTC erred when it awarded the
amount of P110,000.00 as actual damages, as the said amount
was not duly substantiated with receipts. Hence, the amount of
actual damages that can only be recovered is P59,173.50.
b. On proof of future income- Here the SC affirmed the deletion
of the 2mio award for loss of earning capacity. The SC said:
Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings
but for loss of capacity to earn money. Evidence must be
presented that the victim, if not yet employed at the time
of death, was reasonably certain to complete training for
a specific profession. Court cited 2 cases:
i. where damages awarded - In sharp contrast with the
situation obtaining in People v. Teehankee, where the
upon the finality of this decision at the rate of 12% per annum until
satisfaction, in accordance with paragraph number 3 of the immediately
cited guideline in Easter Shipping Lines, Inc.
19. De Caliston v CA
The pension of the decedent being a sure income that was cut short by her
death for which Dalmacio was responsible, the surviving heir of the former
is entitled to the award of P10,000.00 which is just equivalent to the pension
the decedent would have received for one year if she did not die.
The P5,000.00 paid to the herein petitioner by the insurer of the passenger
bus which figured in the accident may be deemed to have come from the bus
owner who procured the insurance. Since the civil liability (ex-delicto) of the
latter for the death caused by his driver is subsidiary and, at bottom, arises
from the same culpa, the insurance proceeds should be credited in favor of
the errant driver.
20. Tamayo v Senora
PNP officer died in a car accident. The RTC modified the formula for net
earning capacity instead of (80-age at death), it used (55-aged at death)
since 55 yo is the retirement age for the PNP. Proper?
Held: No. Hence, the RTC erred in modifying the formula and using the
retirement age of the members of the PNP (55) instead of 80.
On the other hand, gross annual income requires the presentation of
documentary evidence for the purpose of proving the victims annual
income. The victims heirs presented in evidence Senoras pay slip from the
PNP, showing him to have had a gross monthly salary of P12,754.00.
Meanwhile, the victims net income was correctly pegged at 50% of his
gross income in the absence of proof as regards the victims living expenses.
21. Phil Hawk Corp v. Lee
i. General Rule: Actual damages must be substantiated by documentary
evidence, such as receipts, in order to prove expenses incurred as a result of
the death of the victim or the physical injuries sustained by the victim. As a
rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim
for damages for loss of earning capacity.
EXCEPT: By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be
awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when: (1) the
deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact
that at in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available;
or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws.
ii. Here, competent proof of income was ones Certificate of Tax Withheld.
1,125.42 x 13 (representing 13
income)
th
victims injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape. Such
award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity. However, the amount
of P100,000.00 awarded as moral damages is reduced to P75,000.00, in line
with current jurisprudence.
iii. kidnapping
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
28. People v Rarugal (2013 case)
Facts:
Victim, while riding his bike, was suddenly stabbed by the accused. He
didnt suddenly die. He was able to go home and tell his bros who killed him
(dying declaration). He died 7 days later. SC ruled that qualifying
circumstance of treachery was present. Thus, he is guilty of murder.
Damages?
Held:
i. Damages allowable if death due to a crime
Anent the award of damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the
following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of
the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4)
exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6)
interest, in proper cases. (ICA MEA)
ii. There is no distinction between ordinary and qualifying circumstance
insofar as damages are concerned
Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a
distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to
the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of
the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or
qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of
exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the
Civil Code.
iii. Amount of civil liability ex delicto and exemplary damages under current
jurisprudence:
We, however, increase the award of exemplary damages to P30,000.00 and
the award for mandatory civil indemnity to P75,000.00 to conform to recent
jurisprudence.
iv. Moral damages to be awarded when death is caused by crime even with
the absence of proof.
That being said, the Court now comes to Davids prayer that MOELCI be
made to pay the total sum of P5,472,722.27 plus the stipulated interest at
24% per annum from the filing of the complaint. Although the Court agrees
that MOELCI should pay interest, the stipulated rate is, however,
unconscionable and should be equitably reduced. Accordingly, the excessive
interest of 24% per annum stipulated in the sales invoice should be reduced
to 12% per annum.
ii. Attorneys fees
Indeed, David was compelled to file an action against MOELCI but this
reason alone will not warrant an award of attorneys fees. It is settled that
the award of attorneys fees is the exception rather than the rule.
(Also discussed ordinary and extraordinary attorneys fees)
iii. Attorneys fees will be awarded for cases outside the enumeration under
Art. 2208 of NCC only when:
a. If stipulated.
b. In the absence of stipulation, a winning party may be awarded
attorneys fees only in case plaintiffs action or defendants stand is
so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith.
MOELCIs case cannot be similarly classified.
31. Lacson v Reyes
Facts: Lawyer, as administrator and lawyer of heirs, filed a petition for
probate of a will. No oppositors. Granted. He then filed a motion for
attorneys fees.
Held:
The rule (ROC) is therefore clear that an administrator or executor may be
allowed fees for the necessary expenses he has incurred as such, but he may
not recover attorneys fees from the estate. Compensation is fixed by the
rule but such compensation is in the nature of executors or
administrators commissions, and never as attorneys fees. A greater
sum other than that established by the rule may be allowed in any
special case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has been
attended with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of
capacity on the part of the executor or administrator. It is left to the
sound discretion of the court.
Accordingly, to the extent that the trial court set aside the sum of
P65,000.00 as and for Mr. Serquinas attorneys fees, to operate as a lien on
the subject properties, the trial judge must be said to have gravely abused
its discretion.
We have held that a lawyer of an administrator or executor may not charge
the estate for his fees, but rather, his client. Mutatis mutandis, where the
administrator is himself the counsel for the heirs, it is the latter who must
pay therefor. In that connection, attorneys fees are in the nature of
actual damages, which must be duly proved. They are also subject to
certain standards, to wit:
(1) they must be reasonable, that is to say, they must have a bearing on the
importance of the subject matter in controversy;(2) the extent of the
services rendered; and(3) the professional standing of the lawyer. In all
cases, they must be addressed in a full-blown trial and not on the bare word
of the parties. And always, they are subject to the moderating hand of the
courts. (REP)
Case at bar:
Court observes that these are acts performed routinely since they form part
of what any lawyer worth his salt is expected to do. The will was
furthermore not contested. They are not, so Justice Pedro Tuason wrote, a
case [where] the administrator was able to stop what appeared to be an
improvident disbursement of a substantial amount without having to employ
outside legal help at an additional expense to the estate, to entitle him to a
bigger compensation. He did not exactly achieve anything out of the
ordinary.
32. Petron Corp v. NCBA
i. Art 2208 (5) construed:
Article 2208(5) contemplates a situation where one refuses unjustifiably and
in evident bad faith to satisfy anothers plainly valid, just and demandable
claim, compelling the latter needlessly to seek redress from the courts. It
does not mean, however, that the losing party should be made to pay
attorneys fees merely because the court finds his legal position to be
erroneous and upholds that of the other party, for that would be an
intolerable transgression of the policy that no one should be penalized for
exercising the right to have contending claims settled by a court of law. In
fact, even a clearly untenable defense does not justify an award of
attorneys fees unless it amounts to gross and evident bad faith.
Case at bar;
Petrons claim to the V. Mapa properties, founded as it was on final deeds of
sale on execution, was far from untenable. No gross and evident bad faith
could be imputed to Petron merely for intervening in NCBAs suit against
DBP and the Monserrats in order to assert what it believed (and had good
reason to believe) were its rights and to have the disputed ownership of the
V. Mapa properties settled decisively in a single lawsuit.
ii. When exemplary damages may be awarded:
With respect to the award of exemplary damages, the rule in this
jurisdiction is that the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to