GR 163868; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163868; June 4, 2009
ROMUALDO PAGSIBIGAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ELEAZAR CABASAL, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Romualdo Pagsibigan, a bank manager and real estate agent, offered to sell a property owned by Elizabeth Hinal to respondent Eleazar Cabasal in 1991. Cabasal agreed, paying Pagsibigan ₱215,000 and assuming the outstanding obligation with the GSIS, as evidenced by a receipt. Cabasal occupied and renovated the property. In 1992, Cabasal received a notice from GSIS demanding settlement of Hinal’s loan. When Pagsibigan brought Cabasal to Hinal to sign a deed of sale, Hinal refused, stating she never sold the property, authorized its sale, or received the payment. Pagsibigan assured Cabasal he would resolve the issue.
In 1999, Cabasal received another notice from GSIS threatening cancellation of the conditional sale. Cabasal, through counsel, demanded the return of his ₱215,000 from Pagsibigan. Upon Pagsibigan’s failure to comply, a criminal case for estafa was filed. The Regional Trial Court acquitted Pagsibigan of estafa due to lack of criminal deceit but ordered him to pay Cabasal ₱215,000 as civil liability, plus ₱20,000 in attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of attorney’s fees against Pagsibigan.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It affirmed the civil liability of ₱215,000 but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The Court reiterated that an acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not preclude civil liability, which can be established by preponderance of evidence. The receipt and Pagsibigan’s failure to return the money upon demand sufficiently established his obligation to return the payment under the principle of solutio indebiti.
However, the award of attorney’s fees was unjustified. The Court emphasized that such an award is an exception, requiring factual, legal, and equitable justification stated in the body of the decision, not merely in the dispositive portion. The RTC’s decision failed to provide any rationale for the award, rendering it a conclusion without premise and a penalty on the right to litigate. Consequently, the award was deleted for lack of legal basis. The civil liability for the principal amount was upheld as it arose from Pagsibigan’s unjust enrichment at Cabasal’s expense.