ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 160074.
MARGUERITE J. LHUILLIER, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF CLAUDINE L. DARZA v. TITO JOVY HOLDINGS, INC. AND JOVENAL B. TORING
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 160074 (Marguerite J. Lhuillier, As Attorney-In-Fact of Claudine L. Darza v. Tito Jovy Holdings, Inc. and Jovenal B. Toring)
As gleaned from the records, respondents, sometime in September 1991, undertook the construction of a condominium on a lot they owned covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 119498 located in D. Jarosalem St., Cebu City. To finance the construction, respondents obtained a P5,000,000.00 loan from Monte de Piedad Savings Bank, Cebu Branch. The obligation fell due but respondents were not able to satisfy the debt. Thus, they sought another loan from Pacific Lenders, Inc., owned by petitioner, to pay off the indebtedness with Monte de Piedad. As security for the loan with petitioner, respondents mortgaged the lot where the condominium was built on (TCT No. 119498), and properties in Alabang and Las PiƱas Cities covered by TCT Nos. 174894 and T-23729, respectively. [1] cralaw
Respondent Toring, on one occasion, happened to pass by the Office of the Register of Deeds of Makati City and learned that petitioner caused the annotation of an adverse claim [2] cralaw on properties covered by TCT Nos. 174894, 23729, 119498, 129, 116, 204, 202, 210, 206 and 129682. [3] cralaw As quoted in the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), the notice of adverse claim reads:
x x x NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM - Filed by Marguerite Lhuillier claiming ownership over the property described in this title which the registered owner have sold to the abovenamed vendee x x x (Records, pp. 39 and 41 annotations) [4] cralaw
Respondents, thus, filed a case for injunction and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148, alleging that although the parties' agreement was one of mortgage, they were made to sign blank deeds of absolute sale on the properties mentioned, with the assurance that these would not be used and what would prevail was their mortgage agreement. Petitioner Lhuillier, for her part, averred that she was not the owner of Pacific Lenders; that it was really petitioner Darza who extended loans to respondents; and that the latter were not made to sign blank deeds of sale but were made to execute mortgage documents and promissory notes.
Hearings before the lower court were several times postponed and
delayed due to extrajudicial attempts to arrive at a compromise. Later, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss
on the premise that petitioner had already admitted in the Answer that what was
actually entered into by the parties was a mortgage contract and not a deed of
sale. There was thus no reason for
respondents to continue litigating the case. The motion was denied by the RTC on
The RTC later declared respondents as non-suited and deemed to have waived their presentation of evidence in support of their cause of action for their continued absences in the proceedings. Petitioner, thus, presented evidence to support her counterclaim. She presented Realiza Redusta as sole witness, who stated, among others, the following:
(t)hat she is an employee in the
accounting department of H Lhuillier Pawnshop; as such, she is responsible for
the bookkeeping and recording of all the expenses incurred by the employees and
lawyers of their company's president and Claudine L. Darza
was their former vice-president; apart from being officially connected with H
Lhuillier Pawnshop, Marguerite and Claudine are engaged personally in a limited
lending business, among others, during the course of their lending business
that Marguerite and Claudine had loan dealings with Jovenal
[Toring] which culminated in the filing of the
instant case in Makati; and she identified several
proofs of expenses such as receipts, vouchers, plane tickets, etc., and these
expenses were tallied to a total amount of P155,868.09. (pp. 3-18, TSN,
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant Marguerite J. Lhuillier as against the plaintiffs Tito Jovy Holdings, Inc. and Jovenal B. Toring and the plaintiffs are hereby ordered jointly and severally to pay defendant the amount of P155,868.05 representing actual expenses.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo , p. 41) [7] cralaw
Respondents, hence, filed an appeal with the CA, docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 54665, questioning the lower court's order denying their motion
to dismiss and the decision awarding actual expenses to petitioners. In a Decision
[8]
cralaw
dated
The CA ruled that the records reveal that the expenses incurred by Lhuillier were for the litigation of the case. The receipts presented were proofs of transportation fares and board and lodging fees of her counsel. These expenses should therefore be rightfully categorized as attorney's fees or costs and fees of litigation. Petitioner was not, however, entitled to such an award as the compulsion to litigate is not always compensable in terms of attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Respondents were justified in filing the complaint before the RTC, given that the notation of adverse claim was executed in the concept of ownership and not merely for purposes of protecting the rights and interests of a mortgagee. The question of what really was the agreement of the parties was only settled when petitioner filed her answer admitting that it was one of mortgage and not of sale. As it is clear from law and jurisprudence that being forced to litigate is not enough reason to award attorney's fees if the other party which instituted the action had cogent reason to do so, the attorney's fees asserted as a counterclaim by petitioner could not be awarded.
The decretal portion of the CA's decision reads:
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the discussions above conveyed, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED as regards the reversal of the lower court's awarding of attorney's fees and litigation expenses to herein defendant-appellant.
SO ORDERED. [9] cralaw
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA
denied in a Resolution dated
We find no compelling and persuasive reason to reverse the ruling of the appellate court.
In a plethora of cases, this Court has ruled that it is not a sound public policy to place a premium on the right to litigate as no damages can be charged on those who may exercise such precious right in good faith, even if done erroneously. [11] cralaw
CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo , p. 34.
[2] cralaw Id. at 47-50.
[3] cralaw Id. at 35.
[4] cralaw Id. at 40.
[5] cralaw Id. at 36.
[6] cralaw Id.
[7] cralaw Id at 34.
[8] cralaw Id. at 33-43.
[9] cralaw Id at 43.
[10] cralaw Id. at 44-45.
[11] cralaw Republic v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 153563, February 7, 2005, 450 SCRA 550, 558; Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146364, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 492, 524; Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 426 Phil. 61, 88 (2002); Orosa v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 94, 105 (2000); "J" Marketing Corporation v. Sia, Jr., 349 Phil. 513, 517 (1998).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
