LEGAL NOTE 0043: ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE NOT AUTOMATIC IN CASE YOU WIN A CASE. HERE ARE SOME BASIC NOTES ON ATTORNEY’S FEES.

 

SOURCE: OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS (PHILS), INC.  VS. NESTOR N. BARRETTO, DOING BUSINESS AS N.N.B. LIGHTERAGE (G.R. NO. 184215, 9 FEBRUARY 2011, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECTS: MARITIME CASE; NEGLIGENCE OF COMMON CARRIER; COMPENSATORY DAMAGES DEPENDS ON PLEADING AND PROOF; ATTORNEYS FEES NOT AUTOMATIC FOR WINNING CASES. (BRIEF TITLE: OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS VS. BARRETO).

 

IN CASE A PARTY PREVAILS IN A CASE, IS HE AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES?

NO, IN VIEW OF THE POLICY THAT NO PREMIUM SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE.

. . . Being the exception rather than the rule,[67] attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit,[68] in view of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.

 

X WAS COMPELLED TO LIGITAGE WITH THIRD PERSONS, IS HE AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES?

NO WHERE THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF BAD FAITH.

. . . Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where, as here, no sufficient showing of bad faith can be reflected in the party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[70]

 

WHEN CAN ATTORNEY’S FEES BE RECOVERED?

WHERE THERE IS STIPULATION OR WHEN COVERED UNDER ARTICLE 2208 OF THE CIVIL CODE.

. . . In the absence of stipulation, after all, the rule is settled that there can be no recovery of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation other than judicial costs except in the instances enumerated under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[66]

 

IN THE CASE ABOVE, HOW DID THE COURT RESOLVED THE ISSUE ON ATTORNEY’S FEES?

For lack of sufficient showing of bad faith on the part of Barretto, we find that the CA, finally, erred in granting Oceaneering’s claim for attorney’s fees, albeit in the much reduced sum of P30,000.00.  In the absence of stipulation, after all, the rule is settled that there can be no recovery of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation other than judicial costs except in the instances enumerated under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[66] Being the exception rather than the rule,[67] attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit,[68] in view of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[69]Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where, as here, no sufficient showing of bad faith can be reflected in the party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[70]

  

 

 

[1]               CA rollo, CV No. 87168, pp. 165-183.

[2]               Id. at 183.

[3]               Exhibit “A,” Records, Civil Case No. 87168, p. 199.

[4]               Exhibit “C”, id. at 201.

[5]               Exhibit “2”, id. at 448.

[6]               Exhibits “E” to “E-2”, id. at 203-205.

[7]               TSN, 20 April 2001, pp. 5-6.

[8]               Records, pp. 204-205.

[9]               TSN, 27 March 2003, pp. 18-24.

[10]             Id. at 19-20.

[11]             Exhibit “3,” Records, Civil Case No. 87168, p. 449.

[12]             Exhibit “F”, id. at 206.

[13]             Exhibit “21”, id. at 465.

[14]             Exhibit “23”, id. at 468-469.

[15]             Exhibit “22”, id. at 466-467.

[16]             Exhibit “M”, id. at 215.

[17]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

[18]             Id. at 1-26.

[19]             Id. at 51-59.

[20]             Id. at 104.

[21]             TSN, 10 December 1999; 12 January, 2001; 4 April 2000; 1 September 2000.

[22]             TSN, 8 December 2000.

[23]             TSN, 20 April 2001.

[24]             TSN, 24 October 2002; 27 March 2003; 8 May 2003.

[25]             TSN, 15 May 2003.

[26]             TSN, 3 July 2003.

[27]             TSN, 14 August 2003.

[28]             TSN, 28 August 2003.

[29]             TSN, 4 December 2003.

[30]             Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 195-217; 434-506; 539-543.

[31]             Id. at 229; 512; 553; 560-561.

[32]             Id. at 635-663.

[33]             Id. at 668-679.

[34]             Id. at 686-689.

[35]             CA rollo, CV No.  87168, pp. 40-82.

[36]             Id. at 165-183.

[37]             Id. at 185-203.

[38]             Id. at 227-230.

[39]             Rollo, p. 18.

[40]             Empire East Land Holdings, Inc. vs. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc., 566 SCRA 473, 485.

[41]             Spouses Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 338, 353 (1999).

[42]             Filipinas (Pre-Fab Bldg.) Systems, Inc. vs. MRT Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167829-30, 13 November 2007, 537 SCRA 609, 640, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 11053, 16 October 1996, 249 SCRA 331.

[43]             Canada vs. All Commodities Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 146141, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 321, 329.

[44]             Manila Electric Corporation vs. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corporation, G.R. No. 131723, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 62, 79.

[45]             Luxuria Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 989, 1001-1002, (1999).

[46]             MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs. Ssangayong Corporation, G.R. No. 153051, 18 October 2007, 536 SCRA 408, 467-468.

[47]             Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Dynamic Planners and Construction Corp., G.R. Nos. 169408 & 170144, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 541, 567 .

[48]             Santiago vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127440, 26 January 2007, 513 SCRA 69, 86.

[49]             Exhibit “23”, Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 468-469.

[50]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

[51]             Id. at 56-57.

[52]             Exhibit “5”, id. at 451.

[53]             TSN, 27 March 2003, pp. 7-8.

[54]             Exhibits “5” and “6”, Records, Civil Case No. 87168, pp. 451-452.

[55]             Exhibit “10”, id. at 454.

[56]             Exhibits “11” and “12”, id. at 455-456.

[57]             Exhibit “15”, id. at 458.

[58]             Exhibits “16” and “17”, id. at 459.

[59]             Exhibits “8” and “9”, id. at 453.

[60]             Exhibits “13” and “14”, id. at 457, Exhibit “27”; id. at 472.

[61]             Exhibit “28”, id. at 473.

[62]             Exhibit “29” and submarkings, id. at 474-475.

[63]             Exhibit “25”, id. at 471.

[64]             Philippine Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46558, 31 July 1981, 106 SCRA, 391, 412.

[65]             G.R. No. 97412, 12 July 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 96-97.

[66]             Scott Consultants & Resource Development Corporation, Inc. vs. CA, 312 Phil. 466, 480 (1995).

[67]             Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 504, 518-519 (1996).

[68]             Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation vs. Kamalig Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 165608, 13 December 2007, 540 SCRA 139, 159.    

[69]             Frias vs. San Diego-Sison, G.R. No. 155223, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 244, 259-260.

[70]             Felsan Realty & Development Corporation vs. Commonwealth of Australia, G.R. No. 169656, 11 October 2007, 535 SCRA 618, 632.