Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > February 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21569 February 28, 1966 BIENVENIDO P. BUAN, ET AL. v. PRISCILLO CAMAGANACAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21569. February 28, 1966.]

Estate of the Deceased MR. and MRS. FLORENCIO P. BUAN, represented by BIENVENIDO P. BUAN and A. NATIVIDAD PARAS, co-administrators, doing business under the name and style of PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, Petitioners, v. PRISCILLO CAMAGANACAN, Respondent.

A. A. Sison for the petitioners.

F. R. Sotto for the Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. ATTORNEY’S FEES; REASON FOR AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES MUST BE STATED IN THE DECISION. — The text of the decision should state the reason why attorney’s fees are being awarded, otherwise the award is disallowed (Fed. of United Namarco Distributors, Inc., Et. Al. v. National Marketing Corp., L-17819, and National Marketing Corp. v. Tan, etc., Et Al., L-17768, 31 March 1962; Jimenez v. Bucoy, L-10221, 28 Feb. 1959; Castillo, v. Samonte, L-13146, 30 January 1960).

2. ID.; ID.; AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES EXCEPTIONAL. — The general rule is that it is not sound public policy to place a penalty on the right to litigate (Tan Ti v. Alveor, 26 Phil., 568); nor should counsel fees be awarded every time a party wins a lawsuit (Jimenez v. Bucoy supra). The award of attorney’s fees remains exceptional and it is up to the court to make an express finding of facts that justify the grant of counsel fees.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES DEMANDS FACTUAL, LEGAL OR EQUITABLE JUSTIFICATION. — The exercise of judicial discretion in the award of attorney’s fees under No. 11 of Article 2208 of the New Civil Code demands a factual, legal or equitable justification upon the basis of which the court exercises its discretion. Without such justification, the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court Appeals (CA-G.R. 23401-R) under date 18 June 1963 affirming the award of damages and attorney’s fees by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in its Civil Case No. 3712, in favor of herein respondent, Priscillo Camaganacan, and against herein petitioner, Estate of the late Attorney and Mrs. Florencio P. Buan, Et. Al.

As narrated by the appellate court, the facts are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the night of December 14, 1954, Priscillo Camaganacan, a pay passenger bound for Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal, took at San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippine Rabbit Bus No. 79 belonging to the Estate of Mr. & Mrs. Florencio P. Buan, of which defendants are the administrators. In Malolos, Bulacan, the bus tried to overtake a La Mallorca bus. The two buses ran a race. As it overtook the La Mallorca bus in Guiguinto, Bulacan, and while driven at a fast clip, the Philippine Rabbit bus ran smack into a Delbros trailer travelling in the opposite direction.

"In consequence, Priscillo Camaganacan suffered a fracture of the right wrist, a crushing injury on the second finger of the left hand, and a lacerated wound on the right leg. Brought to the Malolos Provincial Hospital, he was on the next day — December 15, 1954 — transferred to the National Orthopedic Hospital in Mandaluyong. Discharged on January 22, 1955, he received further treatment until April 15, 1955. His hospital expenses were paid by the defendants.

"On July 22, 1955, Priscillo Camaganacan started suit for damages. The judgment below ordered defendants to pay plaintiff P2,630.00 as actual damages, plus P2,000.00 as attorneys’ fees, or a total of P4,680.00, and the costs. Defendants appealed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Not satisfied by the affirmatory judgment of the Court of Appeals, the herein petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court on the lone assignment of error that "The Court of Appeals erred in sentencing the herein petitioners to pay the herein respondent the sum of P2,000.00 for attorney’s fees"

The trial court did not state in its decision why it was awarding attorney’s fees against the defendants therein; the matter of such fees was touched but once and appears already in the dispositive portion of the decision. The Court of Appeals, passing also upon this point, and nowhere else in its decision, merely stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On the matter of attorneys’ fees, the lower court in the exercise of ample discretion under Article 2208 (11), Civil Code, fixed the amount at P2,000.00. No justification exists why this amount should be disturbed. In fact, we find in appellants’ counterclaim that they placed their counsel’s fees also at that amount."cralaw virtua1aw library

The text of the decision should state the reason why attorneys’ fees are being awarded, otherwise, the award is disallowed (Fed. of United Namarco Distributors, Inc., Et. Al. v. National Marketing Corp. L-17819, and National Marketing Corp. v. Tan, etc., Et Al., L-17768, 31 March 1962; Jimenez v. Bucoy, L-10221, 28 Feb. 1959; Castillo v. Samonte, L-13146, 30 January 1960).

The very opening paragraph of Article 2208 reveals that the award of attorneys’ fees remains exceptional in our law, and it is up to the court to make an express finding of the facts that bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of counsel fees:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 2208 In the absence of stipulation, attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs can not be recovered, except: . . ." (Italics supplied).

the general rule being still that it is not sound public policy to make a penalty on the right to litigate (Tan Ti v. Alveor, 26 Phil. 568); nor should counsel fees be awarded every time a party wins a lawsuit (Jimenez v. Bucoy, supra.)

It is true that, in No. 11 of Article 2208, recovery of counsel fees is allowed "where the court deems it just and equitable that attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered", but even in such cases the conclusion must be borne out 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 Article 2208 expressly adds that the "attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable." In the present case, for the award of P2,680.00 in actual damages the appealed decision awards no less than P2,000.00 in counsel fees, which is hardly reasonable. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion in the award of attorneys’ fees under Article 2208 (11) of the Civil Code demands a factual, legal, or equitable justification upon the basis of which the court exercises, its discretion. Without such justification, the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision under review is hereby modified by deleting therefrom the award of attorney’s fees. No pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Sanchez, J., did not take part.




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






February-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23876 February 22, 1966 URSULA C. DAJAO v. BENEDICTO PADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17518-19 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO SECAPURI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18295 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIZARDO PASIONA

  • G.R. No. L-17638 February 28, 1966 PRIMO GAFFUD v. MARCIANA CRISTOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19371 February 28, 1966 HOSPITAL DE SAN JUAN DE DIOS, INC. v. PASAY CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21079 February 28, 1966 IN RE: KOA HENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21671 February 28, 1966 IN RE: TAN HUY LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19648 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MACABUHAY

  • G.R. No. L-19579 February 28, 1966 IN RE: CHAN KIAT HUAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19722 February 28, 1966 FLORENCIO L. ALBINO v. TOMAS L. BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19751 February 28, 1966 ALFREDO REMITERE, ET AL. v. REMEDIOS MONTINOLA VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19900 February 28, 1966 EXPEDITO REMONTE, ET AL. v. AQUILINO P. BONTO

  • G.R. No. L-19905 February 28, 1966 VIRGILIO BRUA v. ENRIQUE INTING

  • G.R. No. L-20152 February 28, 1966 IN RE: LEONCIO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20412 February 28, 1966 PNB v. AMANDO M. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20505 February 28, 1966 IN RE: ONG KIM KONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20601 February 28, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20712 February 28, 1966 IN RE: TAN KING BOOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20753 February 28, 1966 BASIC BOOKS (PHIL.), INC. v. EMILIO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20978 February 28, 1966 PHIL- AM GEN. INS. CO., INC. v. EUGENIO B. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21415 February 8, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21435 February 28, 1966 MLA. ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM.

  • G.R. No. L-21447 February 28, 1966 JOSE REYES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21523 February 28, 1966 NGO CHIAO LIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-21569 February 28, 1966 BIENVENIDO P. BUAN, ET AL. v. PRISCILLO CAMAGANACAN

  • G.R. No. L-21833 February 28, 1966 STATE BONDING & INS. CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21877 February 28, 1966 J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ENRIQUE TONGOL

  • G.R. No. L-22043 February 28, 1966 AURORA C. MALLARI, ET AL. v. VICTORY LINER, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22609 February 28, 1966 CHIEF OF THE P.C. v. SABUNGAN BAGONG SILANG, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23301 February 28, 1966 CELESTINO E. ESUERTE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JAMPAYAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23828 February 28, 1966 PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24727 February 28, 1966 PATERNO JAVIER v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ANTIQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25084 and L-25270 February 28, 1966 ELENITA V. UNSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25502 February 28, 1966 LEOPOLDO DIAZ v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25521 February 28, 1966 GREGORIO FERINION v. DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA, ET AL.