CA favors Ang Dating Daan's Soriano in ABS-CBN damage suit

The Court of Appeals has dismissed ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation's claim of P100,000 in damages against "Ang Dating Daan" television evangelist Eliseo "Eli" Soriano. In an 11-page decision, the appellate court's Special Sixth Division ruled that Soriano and his religious group "Bayan ng Katotohanan" do not have to grant P100,000 in attorney's fees being sought by ABS-CBN in a separate case where it stands as defendant. "Current jurisprudence instructs that in awarding attorney’s fees, the trial court must state the factual, legal, or equitable justification for awarding the same, bearing in mind that the award of attorney’s fees is the exception, not the general rule, and it is not sound public policy to place a penalty on the right to litigate; nor should attorney’s fee be awarded every time a party wins a lawsuit," said the CA decision penned by Associate Justice Vicente Veloso. GMA News Online tried to reach ABS-CBN corporate communications head Bong Osorio for his reaction, but he could not be contacted as of posting time. The CA ruling reversed and set aside a Quezon City Regional Trial Court's earlier ruling, which said that Soriano and his group must pay P100,000 to defendants Patrick Paez, Epoy Fuduranan, Luchi Cruz-Valdes, and Abigail Apostol. The four were formerly affiliated with ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs. In 2003, Soriano asked the Quezon City Regional Trial Court to stop ABS-CBN from airing "Mga Kwentong Komiks ni Bro. Eli," an episode of the now defunct show Special Assignment. The QC court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the network from airing the episode because it "ridiculed, maligned, humiliated, and discredited religious teachings, doctrines and principles of [Soriano] and more particularly the personal reputation and character of Plaintiff Eliseo Soriano." ABS-CBN then filed a P100,000 claim for damages in the form of attorney's fees. In his petition filed with the CA, Soriano argued that ABS-CBN is not entitled to claim damages in the form of attorney’s fees because the amount may only be awarded under the instances provided in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals decided in favor of Soriano and held that "while Article 2208 allows attorney’s fees to be awarded of the claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is sought, there must be a showing that the losing party acted willfully or in bad faith and practically compelled the claimant to litigate and incur litigation expenses." — RSJ, GMA News