ASG Law

Tag: Unfounded Lawsuit

  • Counterclaims Survive: Dismissal of Main Suit Doesn’t Kill the Right to Seek Redress

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has affirmed that a compulsory counterclaim can proceed independently, even if the original complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This decision protects the rights of defendants who have been unfairly dragged into litigation. It ensures they can seek damages for the harm caused by an unfounded lawsuit, regardless of the fate of the initial complaint. This ruling clarifies the interplay between complaints and counterclaims, ensuring fairness and preventing plaintiffs from using jurisdictional loopholes to escape accountability for baseless suits.

    When a Baseless Lawsuit Backfires: Can a Defendant Still Seek Justice?

    The case of Aida Padilla v. Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation arose from a complex financial dispute between Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Globe Asiatique, a real estate developer. PNB had extended credit facilities to Globe Asiatique, secured by contracts to sell (CTS). When Globe Asiatique allegedly defaulted, PNB filed a lawsuit in Pasay City, supported by an affidavit from Aida Padilla, a PNB Senior Vice-President. Globe Asiatique then filed a separate lawsuit against Padilla in Pasig City, claiming she had maliciously executed a false affidavit, leading to damages for the company. The Pasig City court dismissed Globe Asiatique’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that it would be interfering with the Pasay City case. However, it also refused to hear Padilla’s counterclaim for damages resulting from the allegedly baseless lawsuit, leading to this appeal.

    At the heart of the matter was whether the dismissal of the main complaint automatically extinguished Padilla’s right to pursue her compulsory counterclaim. A compulsory counterclaim, as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure, is one that “arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.” In essence, it’s a claim that is so intertwined with the original lawsuit that it should be resolved in the same proceeding. Padilla argued that Globe Asiatique’s lawsuit against her was baseless and malicious, causing her damages. She contended that even if the Pasig City court lacked jurisdiction over Globe Asiatique’s complaint, it should still hear her counterclaim.

    The Supreme Court agreed with Padilla. The Court emphasized the distinction between jurisdiction over the complaint and jurisdiction over the counterclaim. While the Pasig City court correctly dismissed Globe Asiatique’s complaint to avoid interfering with the Pasay City case, it erred in dismissing Padilla’s counterclaim. The Court noted that the counterclaim arose from the very act of filing the allegedly baseless lawsuit, which caused Padilla to incur legal expenses and suffer reputational harm. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint did not eliminate the cause of action underlying the counterclaim. Moreover, the Court underscored that a compulsory counterclaim can be treated as a separate action, wherein the defendant becomes the plaintiff and can pursue damages independently.

    This ruling aligns with the principle of judicial economy, which seeks to avoid multiplicity of suits. Instead of requiring Padilla to file a separate lawsuit to recover her damages, the Court held that her counterclaim should be resolved in the same proceeding. This prevents the unnecessary duplication of effort and resources and promotes a more efficient resolution of disputes. Furthermore, the Court pointed out the unfairness of forcing a defendant, who has been wrongfully sued, to bear the burden of initiating a new lawsuit to seek redress. This would create an undue hardship and discourage defendants from asserting their rights.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the concern that hearing Padilla’s counterclaim would require the Pasig City court to delve into the merits of the Pasay City case. The Court clarified that this was not the case. Padilla’s counterclaim was based on the allegation that Globe Asiatique’s lawsuit was premature and malicious, regardless of the outcome of the Pasay City case. The Pasig City court could determine whether Globe Asiatique acted in bad faith in filing the lawsuit, without necessarily passing judgment on the validity of the Pasay City court’s orders. The pronouncements in Pinga v. The Heirs of German Santiago were crucial in the Court’s reasoning, highlighting that the dismissal of a complaint due to the plaintiff’s fault does not prejudice the defendant’s right to prosecute any pending counterclaims.

    To emphasize the evolution of legal principles on this issue, the Court contrasted its current stance with its earlier ruling in Metals Engineering Resources Corp. v. Court of Appeals. In Metals Engineering, the Court had held that the dismissal of a complaint for lack of jurisdiction also resulted in the dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim. However, the Court has since abandoned this approach, recognizing that a counterclaim can survive the dismissal of the complaint, especially when the counterclaim is based on the very act of filing the unfounded suit.

    The Court also cited Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation to further support its decision. In Perkin Elmer, the Court held that a counterclaim arising from an unfounded suit may proceed despite the dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant-counterclaimant. The Court reasoned that the defendant may have already incurred damages and litigation expenses as a result of the unfounded suit, and it would be unfair to deny them the opportunity to recover those damages. Similarly, in Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Royal Cargo Corporation, the Court allowed a counterclaim for attorney’s fees to proceed, notwithstanding the dismissal of the complaint.

    In light of these precedents, the Supreme Court concluded that the Pasig City court erred in refusing to hear Padilla’s counterclaim. The Court emphasized that Padilla was hauled into a separate court while the dispute between PNB and Globe Asiatique was still being litigated, forcing her to incur expenses defending herself against serious accusations. The Court directed the Pasig City court to proceed with the presentation of evidence in support of Padilla’s compulsory counterclaim. This decision reinforces the principle that a defendant has the right to seek redress for damages caused by an unfounded lawsuit, regardless of the fate of the original complaint. It also demonstrates the Court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and preventing the abuse of legal processes.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether a court can hear a compulsory counterclaim even if the main complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that it can, especially if the counterclaim arises from the filing of the baseless lawsuit itself.
    What is a compulsory counterclaim? A compulsory counterclaim is a claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party’s claim. It is closely connected to the original lawsuit and should be resolved in the same proceeding.
    Why did the Pasig City court dismiss the original complaint? The Pasig City court dismissed the complaint filed by Globe Asiatique because it believed that hearing the case would interfere with the proceedings in a related case pending before the Pasay City court, which is a court of co-equal jurisdiction.
    What was Aida Padilla’s counterclaim? Aida Padilla’s counterclaim was for damages she allegedly suffered as a result of Globe Asiatique filing what she claimed was a baseless and malicious lawsuit against her.
    How does this ruling affect defendants who are sued in court? This ruling protects defendants by ensuring they can seek damages for harm caused by unfounded lawsuits, even if the original complaint is dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. It prevents plaintiffs from escaping accountability through legal technicalities.
    What is the significance of Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago in this case? Pinga established that the dismissal of a complaint due to the plaintiff’s fault does not prejudice the defendant’s right to pursue any pending counterclaims. The Supreme Court relied on this precedent in holding that Padilla’s counterclaim could proceed.
    Did the Supreme Court change its previous stance on counterclaims? Yes, the Supreme Court clarified its previous stance, moving away from the earlier view that the dismissal of a complaint automatically dismisses the counterclaim. The Court emphasized that a counterclaim can survive the dismissal of the complaint, especially when the counterclaim is based on the very act of filing the unfounded suit.
    What is the principle of judicial economy, and how does it apply here? Judicial economy aims to avoid multiple lawsuits by resolving all related claims in a single proceeding. The Court’s decision aligns with this principle by allowing Padilla’s counterclaim to be resolved in the same case, preventing the need for a separate lawsuit.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Aida Padilla v. Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation provides a crucial clarification on the rights of defendants in civil litigation. By affirming that a compulsory counterclaim can proceed independently of the original complaint, the Court has strengthened the protection against baseless lawsuits and ensured that plaintiffs cannot escape accountability for their actions through jurisdictional loopholes. This ruling promotes fairness, efficiency, and access to justice for all parties involved in legal disputes.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Aida Padilla v. Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation, G.R. No. 207376, August 06, 2014

  • Bad Faith Litigation: When Filing Suit Leads to Damages

    No one should be penalized for exercising their right to litigate, but this right must be exercised in good faith. The Supreme Court held that Industrial Insurance Company, Inc. acted in bad faith by filing a baseless lawsuit against Pablo and Ligorio Bondad, who were wrongly implicated in a vehicular accident. As a result, the Bondads were awarded moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, to compensate for the inconvenience and expenses they incurred defending themselves.

    When a Flat Tire Leads to a Lawsuit: The Perils of Reckless Impleading

    The case began with a vehicular accident involving a Galant Sigma car driven by Grace Ladaw Morales, a passenger jeepney driven by Ligorio Bondad, and a DM Transit Bus driven by Eduardo Mendoza. The jeepney, driven by Ligorio Bondad, had stopped due to a flat tire, when a D.M. Transit Bus struck the rear, causing it to swerve and collide with Morales’ car. Industrial Insurance Company, Inc., having paid Morales for the damages, filed a complaint against DM Transit Corporation, Eduardo Diaz, Pablo Bondad, and Ligorio Bondad, alleging that the accident was caused by the joint negligence of the bus driver and Ligorio Bondad. However, the investigation report clearly stated that the bus caused the accident. Despite this, the insurance company impleaded the Bondads in the lawsuit. This decision hinged on the assessment of negligence and the justification for awarding damages against the insurance company for its unfounded lawsuit. The trial court found in favor of the Bondads, ordering the insurance company to pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling with some modifications, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that its jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law, not re-evaluating factual findings. The Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ determination that the accident was caused by the negligence of the bus driver, Eduardo Diaz. The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, to the respondents was justified. The Court agreed with the appellate court’s reasoning that the respondents were compelled to litigate an unfounded suit due to the petitioner’s negligence and lack of prudence in verifying the facts before filing the action. “Proximate cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces injury without which the result would not have occurred.” In this case, the proximate cause of the damage to Morales’ car was the negligence of the DM Transit bus driver, not the Bondads.

    The Court highlighted that attorney’s fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate with third persons or incur expenses to protect their interests due to an unjustified act or omission by the opposing party. The Court pointed out that the contact between the vehicles was due to the bus’s impact. The Bondads’ vehicle was stopped on the shoulder of the road due to a flat tire, an emergency situation that left them with no means to avoid being hit by the bus. The Court further emphasized that the petitioner knew, or should have known, that the respondents were not the cause of the accident. This was evident from the failure to make a prior formal demand on the Bondads before initiating the suit. The carelessness and lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner destroyed its claim of good faith, thus justifying the award of attorney’s fees.

    Moreover, the Court affirmed the award of moral damages, noting that the petitioner acted in bad faith in compelling the respondents to litigate an unfounded claim. The Court emphasized that to sustain an award of moral damages, it must be shown that the claimant suffered injury and that such injury stemmed from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. It is also necessary that such acts be shown to have been tainted with bad faith or ill motive. The Supreme Court cited the trial court’s findings:

    “It is the Court’s findings that the D.M. Transit Bus in question was recklessly engaged in a race with a Baliuag Transit Bus and tried to outrun the former by using the shoulder of the road…There can be no question that the driver of the D.M. Transit Bus was at fault for the accident…There was no need to implead the Bondads as defendants, and if the jeepney had in any way caused, or contributed to, the accident, it could very well be impleaded by the D.M. Transit Bus operator. Worse, no demand for payment was ever made by the plaintiffs on the Bondads.”

    The Court also upheld the award of exemplary damages, stating that the petitioner’s conduct needlessly dragged innocent bystanders into an unfounded litigation. According to Article 2229 of the Civil Code, “Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.” These damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. The Supreme Court stated that the right to litigate should not be penalized but must be exercised in good faith. This principle is echoed in numerous cases, including *ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals* and *Saba v. Court of Appeals*.

    The Supreme Court reiterated that the respondents did not appeal the CA Decision, they are deemed satisfied with it and thus cannot be allowed to attack it belatedly in their Memorandum. The Court ultimately denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Decision. This case underscores the importance of conducting thorough investigations and exercising prudence before filing lawsuits. Filing suits without basis can lead to the imposition of damages, particularly when the party acted in bad faith.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the Industrial Insurance Company acted in bad faith by filing a baseless lawsuit against the Bondads, and whether the award of damages was justified. The Court examined the circumstances surrounding the accident and the subsequent legal action to determine if the insurance company acted prudently and in good faith.
    What is ‘proximate cause’ in legal terms? Proximate cause is the primary reason an injury occurred. It is defined as the act or omission that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
    Why were the Bondads awarded attorney’s fees? The Bondads were awarded attorney’s fees because they were forced to defend themselves in a lawsuit that lacked legal basis. The court found that the insurance company acted negligently and without proper investigation, compelling the Bondads to incur legal expenses to protect their interests.
    What are moral damages and why were they awarded? Moral damages are awarded to compensate for mental anguish, anxiety, and suffering. They were awarded in this case because the insurance company’s baseless lawsuit caused the Bondads emotional distress and inconvenience, particularly since they were innocent parties wrongly implicated in the accident.
    What are exemplary damages and why were they awarded? Exemplary damages are awarded as a form of punishment and to set an example for others. The court awarded them here because the insurance company acted recklessly, dragging innocent parties into an unfounded legal battle, necessitating a deterrent against similar actions.
    What does it mean to litigate in ‘bad faith’? Litigating in bad faith means filing or pursuing a lawsuit without a reasonable belief in its merits, often with malicious intent. The insurance company was deemed to have acted in bad faith because it filed a suit against the Bondads despite clear evidence indicating their lack of involvement in causing the accident.
    What was the significance of the police investigation report? The police investigation report was crucial because it clearly indicated that the bus driver’s negligence caused the accident, exonerating the Bondads. The insurance company’s decision to ignore this report and still pursue legal action against the Bondads was a key factor in the court’s finding of bad faith.
    Can a party be penalized for exercising their right to litigate? While everyone has the right to litigate, that right must be exercised in good faith. If a party files a lawsuit without reasonable grounds and acts negligently or maliciously, they may be penalized with damages and attorney’s fees to compensate the wronged party.

    This case serves as a clear reminder to thoroughly investigate claims and act with prudence before initiating legal action. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that baseless lawsuits can have significant consequences, including the imposition of substantial damages and fees. By acting in bad faith, the insurance company not only lost its case but also incurred additional financial burdens.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. VS. PABLO BONDAD AND LIGORIO BONDAD, G.R. No. 136722, April 12, 2000

  • Moral Damages and Unfounded Lawsuits in the Philippines: Know Your Rights

    When Can You Claim Moral Damages for an Unfounded Lawsuit in the Philippines?

    n

    Filing a lawsuit can be stressful, but can you claim moral damages if someone sues you without basis? Philippine jurisprudence generally says no. While attorney’s fees might be awarded in such cases, moral damages are not automatically granted simply because a lawsuit is dismissed. This case clarifies that the anxiety of litigation alone is not sufficient ground for moral damages. Learn when moral damages are truly applicable in unfounded suits and how to protect your rights.

    nn

    G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine receiving a summons for a lawsuit you believe is completely baseless. The stress, the worry, and the potential damage to your reputation can be immense. You might think, “Surely, I can sue them back for moral damages just for putting me through this!” This is a common reaction, and it’s natural to feel aggrieved when faced with an unfounded legal action. However, Philippine law, as clarified in the case of Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Ricardo Lo, sets a clear boundary on when moral damages can be awarded in such situations. This case delves into the nuances of moral damages, particularly in the context of civil suits deemed to be without merit, providing crucial insights for both potential plaintiffs and defendants in the Philippine legal landscape.

    n

    In this case, Expertravel & Tours, Inc. sued Ricardo Lo for allegedly unpaid travel expenses. Lo, however, presented evidence of payment. The lower courts dismissed Expertravel’s suit and even awarded moral damages to Lo. The Supreme Court, however, stepped in to refine the application of moral damages in cases of unfounded suits, focusing on the crucial question: Is the mere filing of a losing case enough to warrant moral damages?

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: MORAL DAMAGES IN PHILIPPINE LAW

    n

    Moral damages, under Philippine law, are not about punishing the offender but about compensating the victim for suffering. Article 2217 of the Civil Code defines them as including “physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.” These damages are meant to alleviate the intangible harm caused by wrongful actions.

    n

    Article 2219 of the Civil Code enumerates specific instances where moral damages may be recovered. These include criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries, quasi-delicts causing physical injuries, defamation, malicious prosecution, and certain acts violating personal dignity as outlined in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35 of the Civil Code. Notably, simply being sued unsuccessfully is not explicitly listed in Article 2219 as a ground for moral damages. This is a critical point of distinction.

    n

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that while attorney’s fees can be awarded to a defendant in a clearly unfounded suit under Article 2208 (4) of the Civil Code, moral damages are generally not granted automatically. The rationale behind this is deeply rooted in the principle that the law should not penalize individuals for exercising their right to litigate, even if they ultimately lose. To award moral damages routinely to every prevailing defendant would unduly deter people from seeking judicial recourse, fearing potential financial repercussions beyond just losing the case.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS, INC. VS. RICARDO LO

    n

    The story begins with Expertravel & Tours, Inc., a travel agency, providing Ricardo Lo with travel arrangements. Expertravel claimed that Mr. Lo failed to pay for these services amounting to P39,677.20. After unsuccessful demands for payment, Expertravel filed a collection suit in court. Mr. Lo, in his defense, asserted that he had already paid his dues through Expertravel’s then-Chairperson, Ms. Ma. Rocio de Vega. He presented a Monte de Piedad Check and a City Trust Check as evidence of payment, totaling more than the claimed amount.

    n

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sided with Mr. Lo, dismissing Expertravel’s complaint. Importantly, the RTC went further and awarded moral damages of P30,000.00, attorney’s fees of P10,000.00, and costs of suit to Mr. Lo. Expertravel appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto, upholding both the dismissal of the complaint and the award of damages.

    n

    Undeterred, Expertravel elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning specifically the award of moral damages. The Supreme Court framed the key issues as:

    n

      n

    • Can moral damages be recovered in a clearly unfounded suit?

      • n

    • Can moral damages be awarded for negligence or quasi-delict that did not result in physical injury?

      • n

    n

    The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Vitug, meticulously analyzed the grounds for moral damages. The Court acknowledged that moral damages are meant to compensate for genuine suffering resulting from a wrongful act or omission. However, it emphasized that certain conditions must be met for moral damages to be awarded, including:

    n

      n

    1. Proof of injury (physical, mental, or psychological).

      2. n

    2. A culpable act or omission.

      3. n

    3. Proximate causation between the wrongful act and the injury.

      4. n

    4. The case falling under Article 2219 of the Civil Code or analogous cases.

      5. n

    n

    The Supreme Court highlighted a crucial point: “Although the institution of a clearly unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal justification for an award of attorney’s fees, such filing, however, has almost invariably been held not to be a ground for an award of moral damages.” The Court reiterated the rationale that the law protects the right to litigate, and the mere anxiety of being a defendant in a civil suit is considered a normal part of the legal process, not automatically warranting moral damages. As the Supreme Court stated, “The anguish suffered by a person for having been made a defendant in a civil suit would be no different from the usual worry and anxiety suffered by anyone who is haled to court, a situation that cannot by itself be a cogent reason for the award of moral damages.”

    n

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court GRANTED Expertravel’s petition, DELETING the award of moral damages to Ricardo Lo. The rest of the Court of Appeals’ decision, which affirmed the dismissal of Expertravel’s complaint, remained undisturbed.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHEN CAN MORAL DAMAGES BE AWARDED IN UNFOUNDED SUITS?

    n

    The Expertravel case provides a clear rule: Simply winning a lawsuit, even if the suit is deemed unfounded, does not automatically entitle you to moral damages. The anxiety and inconvenience of litigation are considered part of the ordinary experience of engaging with the legal system.

    n

    However, this doesn’t mean moral damages are never available in cases of unfounded suits. Moral damages could potentially be awarded if the unfounded suit is filed maliciously or in bad faith, constituting what is termed “malicious prosecution” in legal terms. Malicious prosecution goes beyond simply filing a weak case; it involves filing a suit with an improper motive, such as harassment or to cause deliberate harm to the defendant’s reputation or business. This improper motive and bad faith must be proven, not merely presumed, and would fall under item 8 of Article 2219 concerning malicious prosecution.

    n

    For businesses and individuals, this ruling offers several key takeaways:

    n

      n

    • Right to Litigate is Protected: The Philippine legal system encourages access to courts. Filing a lawsuit, even if ultimately unsuccessful, is generally not penalized with moral damages unless malice or bad faith is proven.

      • n

    • Focus on Attorney’s Fees: If you are sued in an unfounded case, your primary recourse for recovering expenses related to the suit might be through attorney’s fees, not moral damages, especially if malice is absent.

      • n

    • Malicious Prosecution is the Exception: To claim moral damages successfully, you must demonstrate that the lawsuit against you was not just weak but was filed with malicious intent to cause you harm beyond the typical stress of litigation.

      • n

    • Document Everything: Whether you are a plaintiff or defendant, meticulously document all transactions, communications, and evidence. Solid documentation is crucial in proving or defending against claims and can help demonstrate good faith or lack thereof.

      • n

    nn

    Key Lessons

    n

      n

    • Winning a lawsuit doesn’t automatically mean you get moral damages.

      • n

    • Moral damages are for real suffering, not just the inconvenience of being sued.

      • n

    • To get moral damages for an unfounded suit, you likely need to prove malicious prosecution.

      • n

    • Focus on recovering attorney’s fees in clearly unfounded suits.

      • n

    • Good faith litigation is protected; malice is not.

      • n

    nn

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    nn

    Q: If I win a case, am I automatically entitled to moral damages?

    n

    A: No. Winning a case does not automatically grant you moral damages. Moral damages are awarded based on specific grounds outlined in the law, primarily to compensate for actual suffering caused by wrongful acts. In the context of unfounded lawsuits, moral damages are not typically awarded simply because you won.

    nn

    Q: What is the difference between moral damages and attorney’s fees in an unfounded suit?

    n

    A: Attorney’s fees can be awarded to a defendant in a clearly unfounded suit to compensate for the expenses of litigation. Moral damages, on the other hand, are for compensating intangible harm like mental anguish or reputational damage. In unfounded suits, attorney’s fees are more commonly awarded than moral damages.

    nn

    Q: What constitutes