Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1978 > July 1978 Decisions > G.R. No. L-32552 July 31, 1978 - PEDRO MIRASOL v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-32552. July 31, 1978.]

PEDRO MIRASOL, Petitioner, v. HON. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ (Judge of the Court of First Instance, Camarines Sur) and DOMINADOR MENDOZA, Respondents.

Ramon Imperial for Petitioner.

Abonal & Abonal for Private Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent Court dismissed the appeal from a judgment of the municipal court in an action for forcible entry on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but awarded attorney’s fees in favor of private Respondent. Petitioner seeks to modify said judgment by deleting therefrom the award of attorney’s fees. He claims that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered because no stipulation had been entered by the parties for the payment of attorney’s fees; there was no showing that the obligation to pay attorney’s fees is one of the exceptions enumerated Article 2208 of the New Civil Code; defendant did not claim nor prove it at the hearing; and the award was unreasonable considering that defendant was represented by an attorney from the Office of the Agrarian Counsel.

On the other hand, private respondent claims that attorney’s fees may be awarded as a form of moral damages; the complaint is clearly unfounded and was filed purely for harassment; and the answer incorporated a general prayer for relief.

The Supreme Court held that under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, award of attorney’s fees is merely an exception to the general rule that attorney’s fees are not recoverable in the absence of any stipulation for the payment thereof; attorney’s fees are recoverable only in the concept of actual not moral damages; proof of a gross and evident bad faith in filing a clearly unfounded action must be shown to justify payment of attorney’s fees; and the court must make an express findings of facts and law before awarding attorney’s fees.


SYLLABUS


1. ATTORNEY’S FEES; AWARD; RULE IN AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES. — The rule on awards of attorney’s fees is found in Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, the opening sentence of which clearly intends to retain the award of attorney’s fees as the exception in our law, as the general rule remains that attorney’s fees are not recoverable in the absence of a stipulation thereto, the reason being that it is not sound policy to set a premium on the right to litigate.

2. ID.; ID.; ATTORNEY’S FEES CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS PART OF MORAL DAMAGES. — Even if it is conceded that under the New Civil Code, attorney’s fees become a part of recoverable damages, attorney’s fees are recoverable only in the concept of actual not moral damages.

3. ID.; ID.; EVIDENCE; PROOF NEEDED TO JUSTIFY AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES. — Article 2208 (4) allows attorney’s fees in cases of clearly unfounded civil actions, but it must be understood to mean those where the cause or causes of action are so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith. Clearly then, proof must be presented to the court as to the facts and circumstances constituting the alleged bad faith. Otherwise, the award of attorney’s fees is not justified where there is no proof, other than the bare statement of harassment that a party to be so adjudged had acted in bad faith.

4. ID.; ID.; AWARDS OF ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE BORNE BY A FINDING OF FACTS AND LAW. — The exercise of judicial discretion in the award of attorney’s fees under Art. 2208 (11) of the New Civil Code demands a factual, legal or equitable justification. Without such justification, the award is a conclusion without a premise its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. It cannot be justified by the fact that a general prayer for just and equitable relief was incorporated on the pleadings, because what is just and equitable in a given case is not a mere matter of feeling but of demonstration. The trial court’s conclusion awarding attorney’s fees must be borne out by a finding of facts and law.

5. ID.; ID.; COURTS; DUTY TO MAKE EXPRESS FINDINGS OF FACTS AND LAW BEFORE AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES. — In view of the declared policy of law that awards of attorney’s fees remain the exception rather than the general rule, it must be stressed once again that it is necessary for the court to make express 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 touched once and only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The text itself must expressly state the reason why attorney’s fees are being awarded.


D E C I S I O N


GUERRERO, J.:


This is a petition for review filed by petitioner Pedro Mirasol seeking to modify that part of the judgment rendered by the respondent court in Civil Case No. 6564 entitled "Pedro Mirasol, Plaintiff, v. Dominador Mendoza, Defendant" awarding to the defendant attorney’s fees in the amount of P500.00.

The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In a complaint dated September 26, 1967 filed before the Municipal Court of Magarao, Camarines Sur, petitioner Pedro Mirasol instituted an action for Forcible Entry against private respondent Dominador Mendoza. In his Answer to the complaint, private respondent interposed a Counterclaim alleging (1) the prior existence of a tenancy contract between him and petitioner, and (2) that the complaint was filed purely for harassment, and prayed that the complaint be dismissed, and that on the Counterclaim, judgment be rendered as follows" (1) That plaintiff be ordered to pay moral damages in the amount of P500.00; (2) To declare the existence of lease-hold relations; and for such other relief and remedy as this court may deem just and equitable in the premises."cralaw virtua1aw library

By Order dated February 28, 1968, the trial court dismissed the complaint with costs against the plaintiff; likewise, it dismissed the Counterclaim for insufficient proof. On appeal to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur by the petitioner, the respondent judge, on the ground that the issue involved is purely an agrarian matter, rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, the dispositive portion of which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court, for want of jurisdiction, hereby dismisses the case with costs against the plaintiff. Attorney’s fees at this instance shall not be less than P500.00 in favor of the defendant."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied, he now seeks the relief aforestated earlier in this Decision on the ground that the award of attorney’s fees in favor of respondent Mendoza has no basis in fact and in law. Petitioner contends, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) No stipulation whatsoever has been entered by the parties for the payment of said attorney’s fees and there was no showing that even without such stipulation the obligation to pay the same is one of the exceptions enumerated by Art. 2208 of the Civil Code.

(b) Granting that the respondent Dominador Mendoza was in anyway entitled to the aforementioned attorney’s fees of P500.00, the same cannot be recovered, they not having been claimed nor proved at the hearing, the respondent having chosen not to present any evidence.

(c) That the said attorney’s fees of P500.00 are unreasonable taking into consideration that respondent Mendoza has been represented in the Municipal Court by an attorney of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel and his private attorney in the CFI submitted the case for decision without presenting any evidence."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the other hand, private respondent insists that the award of attorney’s fees is in order, pointing out that (1) attorney’s fees may be given as moral damages, which in this particular case was specifically claimed in his Counterclaim; (2) the complaint is clearly unfounded and was filed purely for the purpose of harassment; and (3) his Answer below incorporated a general prayer for relief.

The rule on awards of attorney’s fees is found in Art. 2208 of the New Civil Code which provides:chanrobles law library

"Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interests;

(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s valid and demandable claim;

(6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws;

(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;

(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered;

In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the very opening sentence of Art. 2208, it is clearly intended to retain the award of attorney’s fees as the exception in our law, as the general rule remains that attorney’s fees are not recoverable in the absence of a stipulation thereto, the reason being that it is not sound policy to set a premium on the right to litigate. In the case at bar, the Court is faced with the question of whether or not the award of attorney’s fees made by the respondent judge in favor of respondent Mendoza falls under the exceptions enumerated in Art. 2208, considering the established fact of the absence of any stipulation regarding attorney’s fees.

We are not persuaded by the private respondent’s contentions. Even if it were conceded that under the New Civil Code, attorney’s fees became a part of recoverable damages, 1 private respondent fails to note that attorney’s fees are recoverable only in the concept of actual damages 2 and not as moral damages as he contends. We are also mindful of the allegation of private respondent that the complaint filed by petitioner (plaintiff below) was clearly unfounded and was filed purely for the purpose of harassment. But the records of the case at bar do not disclose any proof presented by private respondent to substantiate such allegation; neither did the respondent judge make any findings to that effect in his appealed decision. True, Art. 2208 (4) allows attorney’s fees in cases of clearly unfounded civil actions, but it must be understood to mean those where the cause or causes of action are so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith. 3 Clearly then, proof must be presented to the court as to the facts and circumstances constituting the alleged bad faith. Otherwise, the award of attorney’s fees is not justified where there is no proof, other than the bare statement of harassment that a party to be so adjudged had acted in bad faith. 4

Again, private respondent insists that he had incorporated in his Answer a prayer for "such other relief and remedy as this court may deem just and equitable." This is an erroneous conclusion. This Court had categorically ruled that "even in such cases the conclusion must be borne by findings of facts and law. What is just and equitable in a given case is not a mere matter of feeling but of demonstration. This is specially true since the last part of Art. 2208 expressly adds that the "attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable. . . ." Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion in the award of attorney’s fees under Art. 2208 (11) of the New Civil Code demands a factual, legal or equitable justification. Without such justification, the award is a conclusion without a premise its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture." 5

In view of the declared policy of law that awards of attorney’s fees remain the exception rather than the general rule, it must be stressed once again that it is necessary for the court to make express 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 touched once and only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The text itself must expressly state the reason why attorney’s fees are being awarded. 6 The Court, after reading through the text of the appealed decision, finds the same bereft of any findings of fact and law to justify the award of attorney’s fees. The matter of such fees was touched but once and appears only in the dispositive portion of the decision. Simply put, the text of the decision did not state the reason why attorney’s fees are being awarded, and for this reason, the Court finds it necessary to disallow the same for being conjectural.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered modifying the appealed decision by deleting therefrom the award of attorney’s fees.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Fernandez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Castueras v. Bayona, 106 Phil. 340 (1959).

2. Fores v. Miranda, 105 Phil. 266 (1959).

3. Rizal Surety & Insurance Co. v. CA, 20 SCRA 61.

4. Pacific Merchandising Corp. v. Diestro Logging Development Corp., 34 SCRA 704.

5. Buan v. Camaganacan, 16 SCRA 321.

6. Ibid.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1978 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-33019 July 1, 1978 - MANUEL B. SYQUIO v. ALBERTO J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38695 July 1, 1978 - EUGENIO SURIA v. FILEMON O. JUNTEREAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29949 July 6, 1978 - MISAMIS LUMBER, INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32126 July 6, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO TALINGDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40603 July 13, 1978 - PALMARIN Q. HURTADO v. ISABEL G. JUDALENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45347 July 13, 1978 - LUSTIANO FLORES v. MOISES F. DALISAY, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26295 July 14, 1978 - SALVACION A. CATANGCATANG v. PAULINO LEGAYADA

  • G.R. No. L-33798 July 14, 1978 - SENECIO M. DURAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36637 July 14, 1978 - GENEROSO MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38606 July 14, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MARAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47196 July 14, 1978 - ANTONIA C. CARTAS v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. P-133 July 20, 1978 - ESPERANZA MALANYAON v. RUFINO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-44060 July 20, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO PARAGSA

  • A.M. No. 707-MJ July 21, 1978 - RURAL BANK OF BAROTAC NUEVO, INC. v. SERGIO CARTAGENA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 917-MJ July 21, 1978 - CRISPIN BARTIDO v. CESAR LARROBIS

  • A.M. No. P-941 July 21, 1978 - JOSE G. ARELLANO v. JESUS AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25087 July 21, 1978 - SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHIL. LIMITED v. NEDLLOYD LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26054 July 21, 1978 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. JESUS PANAGUITON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30668 July 21, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32754-5 July 21, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL I. PILONES

  • G.R. No. L-35910 July 21, 1978 - PURITA BERSABAL v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41961 July 21, 1978 - MARCELINO CALUZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43468 July 21, 1978 - ISABEL LOPEZ ELISEO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46542 July 21, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMENEGILDO A. PRIETO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-47482 July 21, 1978 - ANGELITO TAN, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31948 July 25, 1978 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. UNION DE MAQUINISTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42767 July 25, 1978 - JUSTINO PASCUA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47342 July 25, 1978 - NICOLAS GALDO v. EULALIO D. ROSETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47753 July 25, 1978 - ANTONIO A. CUDIAMAT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42946 July 26, 1978 - JUAN ORILLANEDA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-1015 July 28, 1978 - FEDERICO JAVINES v. ADRIANO MARZON

  • A.M. No. P-60 July 31, 1978 - MELBA C. AMOLADOR v. JUAN FELICIDARIO

  • A.M. No. 326-CJ July 31, 1978 - PEDRO VILLA v. FRANCISCO LLAMAS

  • A.M. No. P-985 July 31, 1978 - EUGENIO DELA CRUZ v. ROBERTO MUDLONG

  • A.M. No. P-1161 July 31, 1978 - VICTORIA PRIETO, ET AL. v. CRISPIN PERALTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-1391 July 31, 1978 - MILAGROS PEÑALOSA v. FELIX VISCAYA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-26861 July 31, 1978 - ERNESTO D. BOHOL, SR., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO L. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-27914 July 31, 1978 - ROBERTO A. PASCUAL v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28979 July 31, 1978 - RAFAEL BARICAN v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30014 July 31, 1978 - GREGORIO ARINES, ET AL. v. EMILIO CUACHIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32552 July 31, 1978 - PEDRO MIRASOL v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33089 July 31, 1978 - STA. CLARA LUMBER CO., INC. v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37051 July 31, 1978 - ANITA U. LORENZANA v. POLLY CAYETANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39089-90 July 31, 1978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR PAY-AN

  • G.R. No. L-40295 July 31, 1978 - ABRAHAM C. SISON v. EPI REY PANGRAMUYEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42319 July 31, 1978 - B. F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42485 July 31, 1978 - BONIFACIO L. SOLIS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43073 July 31, 1973

    FRANCISCO ABORDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43204 July 31, 1978 - RODITO T. SARIL, ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43575 July 31, 1978 - MARCIANO LAMCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-43668-69 July 31, 1978 - POTENCIANO MENIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44108 July 31, 1978 - BENJAMIN Z. VILLANUEVA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45719 July 31, 1978 - GENERAL TEXTILES ALLIED WORKERS ASSO. v. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-47711-12 July 31, 1978 - BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM GMBH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47752 July 31, 1978 - CONSOLIDATED FARMS, INC., II v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48088 July 31, 1978 - GOTARDO FLORDELIS v. EDGAR R. HIMALALOAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48198 July 31, 1978 - PRUDENCIA GLORIA-DIAZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.