HEIRS OF BASILISA JUSTIVA, NAMELY, LEON GREGORIOS, DOLORES GREGORIOS, TRINIDAD GREGORIOS, LOLITA GREGORIOS, FOR HERSELF AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED LUC…

This is a petition for review of that part of the decision of the
Court of Appeals awarding to the spouses Jesus Gustilo and Purificacion
Gustilo, attorney’s fees plus moral and actual damages.

It appears that in December 1952, petitioners filed against said
spouses a complaint for the annulment of two deeds of sale executed in
their favor by Isidra Justiva, of whom plaintiffs claimed to be the
legal heirs. They alleged that Isidra Justiva had signed said deeds
because of insidious words and machinations of the Gustilo spouses.
Later, the complaint was amended in September 1994, to assert as basis
therefor that the same defendants “had fraudulently transferred in
their names said two parcels of land belonging to Isidra Justiva
without her knowledge and consent, taking advantage of her credulity,
ignorance and illiteracy, and abusing the absolute confidence and trust
she reposed on them”. Again on June 1955, petitioners amended their
complaint to add another ground of action, namely, that the signatures
of Isidra Justiva were forgeries.

Denying the charges, the defendant spouses prayed in their
counterclaim for moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00, attorney’s
fees in the amount of P2,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of
P5,000.00.

Dismissing the complaint, the court sentenced the plaintiffs (above
petitioners) to pay defendants (herein respondents) P2.000.00 for moral
damages, P1,000.00 for actual damages and P2,000.00 for attorney’s fees.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the court’s decision in toto.

Petitioners here assail the propriety and legality of the damages
and attorney’s fees assessed against them. They no longer question the
dismissal of their complaint.

Briefly stated, their argument rests on the alleged absence of any
finding in the decision of the lower court and of the Court of Appeals,
that their complaint was malicious or that they had acted in gross and
evident bad faith in filing the same.

Generally, attorney’s fees are not a proper element of damages, for
it is not sound policy to set a premium on the right to litigate.^[1] Thus, no right to such fees can accrue merely because of an adverse decision.^[2]
This is precisely the rationale for taxing costs, in certain cases,
against the losing party. The payment therefore, from the viewpoint of
sanction, is deemed sufficient. Nonetheless, various exceptions are
provided for by law.^[3] Some
of these are: “In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or
proceeding” or where the Court deems it just and equitable that
attorney’s fees be recovered.^[4]

Petitioners’ actuations in this case were expressly found to be
insincere and baseless, by both the Court of First Instance and the
Court of Appeals. There was, therefore, no error in the award of
attorney’s fees.^[5]

For the same reason, this Court must sustain the imposition of moral damages.^[6] Patent indeed is the insincerity of the petitioners’ various amended complaints.

His Honor, the trial judge, F. Imperial Reyes, commented:

“Antes de la demanda de fecha 13 de diciembye de
1952, hubo otra de fecha 23 de octubre de 1952 (Exh. 2), la cual fus
sobreseida. En aquella primera demanda se alego que la consideraeion
del otorgamiento de las dos escrituras era inadecuada e insuficiente.
Sin embargo, en la demanda de fecha 13 de diciembre de 1952, y en las
dos demandas enmendadas, una de fecha 8 de septiembre de 1952, y otro
de fecha 7 de junio de 1955 solo se alega que las firmas de Isidra
Justiva en las dos escrituras han sido falsificadas y si son genuinas,
las mismas han sido obtenidas mediante fraude y sin ninguna
consideracion. Como se vera, la teoria en la primera demanda, que fue
sobreseida ha sido abandonada. Esto no habla bien de la sinceridad de
la pretension de los demandantes.”

And the allegation of forgery of the documents is all but a
defamation, which in the light of Art. 2219(7) of the Civil Code, could
by analogy be ground for payment of moral damages, considering the
wounded feelings and besmirched reputation of the defendants.

Is the award of actual damages proper? While the prayer by. the
respondents in their “Answer” mentions only exemplary damages, moral
damages and attorney’s, fees, therein also is a plea for “such further
relief * * * as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable.” This
prayer may include “actual damages”, if and when they are proved. It is
to be observed that in the course of the trial, defendants introduced
evidence of actual damages; yet petitioners failed to object to such
presentation. Consequently, the unalleged but proved matter of actual
damages may be considered by the court. The trial judge mentioned such
damages. And the Court of Appeals, without going into specifics,
approved the award, and declared explicitly that the evidence sustained
it. In this Court appellees quoted without contradiction portions of
the oral evidence in support of the Judge’s findings. So, the matter
being factual, we must, in the circumstances, affirm the appellate
court’s assessment of actual damages.

Wherefore, as this petition turns out to be without judicial
foundation, the decision under review is affirmed, with costs. So
ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador , Concepcion , Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., took no part.

---

^[1] See Tan Ti vs. Alvear, 26 Phil. 566.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Art. 2208, Civil Code of the Philippines.

^[4] Art. 2208, Civil Code of the Philippines.

^[5] See Jimenez vs. Bucoy, 103 Phil. 40.

^[6] Art. 2217 and 2219, Civil Code of the Philippines .