Professional Documents
Culture Documents
So Ping Bun V CA (Original Case)
So Ping Bun V CA (Original Case)
751
SECOND DIVISION.
752
752
753
_______________
1
Id. at 5758.
754
754
Ibid.
755
755
MANUEL C. TIONG4
President
_______________
4
756
Id. at 4142.
757
757
758
631.
10
Zoby vs. American Fidelity Co., 242 Federal Reporter, 2d Series, 76,
80 (1957).
759
759
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
15
Kurtz vs. Oremland, 33 N.J. Super. 443, 111 A.2d 100 Restatement
760
circumstances
provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil
16
Code. One such occasion is when the defendants act or
omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with 17third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest. But
we have consistently held that the award of considerable
18
damages should have clear, factual and legal bases. In
connection with attorneys fees, the award should be
commensurate to the benefits that would have been derived
from a favorable judgment. Settled is the rule that fairness
of the award of damages by the trial court calls for
appellate review
such that the award if far too excessive
19
can be reduced. This ruling applies with equal force on the
award of attorneys fees. In a long line of cases we said, It
is not sound policy to place a penalty on the
_______________
16
17
18
761
decision
and
resolution
Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 159 SCRA 433, 442
(1988).
21
Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. vs. CA, 274 SCRA 432 (1997) Fortune
Express, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. 119756, March 18, 1999, 305 SCRA 14 RCBC
vs. CA, G.R. 133107, March 25, 1999, 305 SCRA 449 Urquiaga vs. CA,
G.R. 127833, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 738.
762
762
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.