THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214003. January 25, 2016.]
SPOUSES MIGUEL JUAN DEL GALLEGO AND MA. ELENA DEL GALLEGO, AND COMFORTER EXPRESS REALTY, INC., petitioners, vs. GLORIA G. PAZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 25, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214003 (Spouses Miguel Juan Del Gallego and Ma. Elena Del Gallego, and Comforter Express Realty, Inc. vs. Gloria G. Paz). — This case stemmed from a complaint for recovery of sum of money and damages, with application for preliminary attachment 1 filed by respondent Gloria G. Paz (Gloria) against Spouses Miguel Juan Del Gallego (Miguel) and Ma. Elena Del Gallego (Elena), and Comforter Express Realty, Inc. (CERI), collectively, "the petitioners."
The record showed that Gloria met Elena in 1997, and their first transaction involved a property owned by Gloria's family which was purchased by Mactan Ocean View Properties and Holdings (MOVPH), through the agency of Elena, in the amount of P30,000,000.00. 2
Sometime in April 1998, CERI, through its president and manager Elena, borrowed from Gloria the amount of P2,300,000.00, evidenced by Check No. 0570000183498 3 dated December 23, 1998 amounting to P1,200,000.00 and Check No. 0570000183500 4 dated June 23, 1999 amounting to P1,100,000.00, which were both under the account name of CERI drawn by Elena and payable to Gloria. 5
Two days before the due date of the first check, Elena called Gloria and requested not to deposit the check on said due date due to insufficiency of funds and to hold the same until the date of the second check. Gloria acceded to the request. A day before the due date of the second check, Elena called Gloria again and pleaded for an extension of one month because her account lacked funds. 6
After the lapse of one month or on July 23, 1999, Gloria deposited the two checks to the bank which later informed her that the December 23, 1998 check was stale and that the June 23, 1999 check had a closed account. 7
Gloria contacted Elena in her office in Mandaue City as well as in her residence at Talamban, Cebu City but she could not be reached as she was always out. This prompted Gloria to consult a lawyer. Thereafter, she sent a demand letter dated August 15, 1999 to Elena. As her demand remained unheeded, Gloria filed a collection suit against the petitioners. 8
On September 20, 1999, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 12 ordered the issuance of a Writ of Attachment. Upon the posting of the corresponding bond, a Writ of Preliminary Attachment was accordingly issued on September 27, 1999. 9
Miguel filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated September 20, 1999 and a Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Attachment. In addition, Elena and CERI filed a Motion to Discharge Attachment. Nonetheless, on November 12, 1999, the RTC denied all the said motions. Thereafter, trial ensued. 10
For her part, Elena said that her company, CERI, brokered the property of Gloria to its buyer MOVPH. She claimed that there was an agreement between Gloria and CERI as regards the commission for the sale of the property. However, CERI was not able to collect the said commission from MOVPH, thus Elena suggested to Gloria that they will just accept the two condominium units to be given to them by owner Megaworld (part-owner of MOVPH). They will sell the two units and the proceeds thereof will be given to Gloria as payment of CERI's obligation. However, they were not able to sell the units; hence they failed to pay Gloria. 11
For his part, Miguel averred that he should not be made a party to the case as he never met Gloria before the filing of the case and he was not connected with CERI. 12
On May 6, 2004, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Gloria and ordered the petitioners to pay the sum of P2,300,000.00 with legal rate of interest thereof at 12% per annum to be computed from the last demand; moral damages of P150,000.00; exemplary damages of P150,000.00; reimbursement of litigation expenses of P180,000.00; and attorney's fees of P500,000.00. 13 ATICcS
The petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision 14 dated September 17, 2013, the CA partly granted the appeal and deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution 15 dated July 31, 2014. Hence, this petition.
The petition lacks merit.
The record clearly showed that Elena did not deny the existence of the issuance of the subject checks in favor of Gloria. In fact, she admitted that she drew the checks in behalf of CERI and accepted that she owed something from Gloria. Thus, the existence of the obligation is undisputed.
This Court, however, concurs with the disquisition of the appellate court that the loan incurred by Elena allegedly in behalf of CERI is not valid and binding upon the latter. Other than Elena's self-serving assertions, there is no evidence on record that will show that Elena was authorized by CERI to obtain such loan from Gloria. Despite the subject checks being under the account of CERI, they were signed by Elena without any proof that she had the authority to issue such checks. Absent such written authority of the corporate officer, Elena's acts shall be considered unauthorized and shall not bind the corporation.
Nevertheless, a modification of the awarded attorney's fees, by the RTC and the CA, is in order.
Attorney's fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 16 of the Civil Code. As such, it is necessary for the court to make findings of fact and law that would bring the case within the ambit of these enumerated instances to justify the grant of such award, and in all cases it must be reasonable. 17
In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that Gloria was forced to file the instant case to protect her interest, i.e., to recover her money. However, the Court finds the amount of P500,000.00 as attorney's fees too excessive and unreasonable. Hence, the Court deems it proper to reduce the amount of attorney's fees to P100,000.00, in line with the policy that the award of attorney's fees must be reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Decision dated September 17, 2013 and Resolution dated July 31, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00175 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award of attorney's fees is reduced to P100,000.00."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 26.
2. Id. at 27.
3. Id. at 46.
4. Id. at 47.
5. Id. at 27-28.
6. Id. at 28.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 29.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 30.
12. Id.
13. Issued by Judge Aproniano B. Taypin, id. at 26-27.
14. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring; id. at 26-42.
15. Id. at 43-45.
16. Under Article 2208 of the Civil Code, attorney's fees may be recovered:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
xxx xxx xxx
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.
17. Benedicto v. Villaflores, 646 Phil. 733, 741-742 (2010).