G.R. No. L-32552 July 31, 1978
PEDRO MIRASOL, petitioner, vs. HON. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ (Judge of the Court of First Instance, Camarines Sur) and DOMINADOR MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro Mirasol filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against private respondent Dominador Mendoza before the Municipal Court of Magarao, Camarines Sur. In his Answer, Mendoza interposed a Counterclaim, alleging the existence of a prior tenancy contract and that the complaint was filed purely for harassment. He prayed for moral damages of P500.00, a declaration of leasehold relations, and other just relief. The trial court dismissed both the complaint and the Counterclaim for insufficient proof. Mirasol appealed to the Court of First Instance.
The respondent judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, deeming the issue an agrarian matter. The dispositive portion of the CFI judgment ordered the dismissal of the case with costs against Mirasol and awarded attorney’s fees of not less than P500.00 in favor of Mendoza. Mirasol’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition to delete the award of attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a reversible error in awarding attorney’s fees to the private respondent.

RULING

Yes, the award of attorney’s fees was erroneous and must be deleted. The general rule under Article 2208 of the Civil Code is that attorney’s fees are not recoverable in the absence of a stipulation. The enumerated exceptions are strictly construed, as the policy is not to place a premium on the right to litigate. The award in this case does not fall under any valid exception.
The private respondent’s contention that attorney’s fees may be awarded as moral damages is incorrect; they are recoverable only in the concept of actual damages, not moral damages. His alternative claim that the suit was a clearly unfounded civil action under Article 2208(4) also fails. For this exception to apply, the action must be so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith. The record is devoid of any factual findings by the respondent judge to substantiate the allegation of harassment or bad faith. A bare allegation is insufficient.
Furthermore, the general prayer for “other just and equitable relief” in the Answer does not automatically justify an award. The exercise of judicial discretion under Article 2208(11) demands a factual, legal, or equitable justification demonstrated in the body of the decision. The text of the appealed decision is completely bereft of any reasoning to support the award; it is mentioned only in the dispositive portion. An award of attorney’s fees cannot be based on speculation and must have a clear premise stated in the decision. Consequently, the award is disallowed for being conjectural and without legal basis. The appealed decision is modified by deleting the award of attorney’s fees.