The Rulings of the Court
Although attorney’s fees are not allowed in the absence of stipulation, the court can award the same when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest or where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just, and demandable claim.[1]
Still, the award of attorney’s fees to the winning party lies within the discretion of the court, taking into account the circumstances of each case. This means that such an award should have factual, legal, and equitable basis, not founded on pure speculation and conjecture. Further, the court should state the reason for the award of attorney’s fees in the body of the decision. Its unheralded appearance in the dispositive portion is, as a rule, notallowed.[2]
Here, however, although the RTC did not specifically discuss in the body of its decision its basis for awarding attorney’s fees, its findings of fact clearly support such an award. For instance, the RTC found, based on the record, that Bongar persistently and clearly violated the terms of its contract with Alcatel. It failed to finish the works by October 29, 1991, the stipulated date. It sought on December 1, 1991, more than a month after it was in violation, to finish its job by May 31, 1992, an extra seven months for just a three-month project. Worse, when Alcatel had to take over the job to save its own undertaking to PLDT, Bongar refused to return to Alcatel the uninstalled materials that it provided for the works.[3] Alcatel was forced to litigate to protect its interest.[4]
With respect, however, to Alcatel’s claims for refund of what it overpaid Bongar and for recovery of the costs incurred in procuring needed materials anew, the Court sees no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and the CA. Alcatel mainly asserts that, since Bongar failed to specifically deny those claims, it should be deemed to admit them. But, as the CA aptly held, Bongar vehemently disputed and rejected such claims in its answer to the complaint.[5]
Notably, Alcatel averred that it paid Bongar P7,056,449.31 when the value of its work amounted to only P6,555,966.92, showing an excess payment of P500,482.41. But, in its Answer, Bongar said that it received only P6,505,049.61.[6] Besides, the receipts that Alcatel presented were only for P2,409,481.40,[7] P1,300,000.00,[8] and P2,795,568.71.[9] It adduced no receipts for the amounts of P315,790.00 and P234,609.70.[10] The same is true of Alcatel’s claim for re-procurement costs. It adduced no evidence to substantiate such claim. Indeed, Alcatel expressed the belief that it did not have to prove its two claims since Bongar did not specifically deny them,[11] an unfounded belief.
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTLY GRANTS the petition, SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 74652 dated August 31, 2007, and REINSTATES the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 66, in Civil Case 93-2323 dated September 24, 2001.
SO ORDERED."
