3/25/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the Court considers the amount of P50,000.00 in moral damages as proper.[24] Meanwhile, exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, pursuant to Article 2229 of the Civil Code. They are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another but to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions. While exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right, they need not be proved, although plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages before the court may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.[25] In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.[26] Coming now to the case at bar, the appellate court found that ... negligence not only exists but was deliberately perpetrated by petitioners by its arbitrary refusal to commit the ailing private respondent to a hospital in New Zealand or at any nearest port ... which resulted to the serious deterioration of his health that caused his permanent partial disability. Such deprivation of immediate medical attention appears deliberate by the clear manifestation from petitioners' own words which states that, "the proposition of the complainant that respondents should have taken the complainant to the nearest port of New Zealand is easier said than done. It is worthy to note that deviation from the route of the vessel will definitely result to loss of a fortune in dollars not only to the respondents [petitioners herein] but likewise to the owners of the cargoes being shipped by the said vessel." Petitioners never denied making this statement. Given the prevailing circumstances, the appellate court's award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages is adequate, fair, and reasonable.[27] Although the labor arbiter awarded attorney's fees, which award was subsequently affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, the basis for the same was not discussed in his decision nor borne out by the records of this case, and should therefore be deleted. There must always be a factual basis for the award of attorney's fees.[28] This is consistent with the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[29] WHEREFORE, the 1 December 1999 Decision and 11 February 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED, with the modification that petitioners must also pay private respondent P50,000.00 as moral damages and the award of attorney's fees is deleted. SO ORDERED. Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50003 14/16