evidence was presented concerning private respondents professional standing does not necessarily rule out a claim for attorneys fees. The absence of evidence on this point will only result in such factor not being considered to enhance or diminish private respondents claims. With respect to petitioners contention that the respondent court erred in affirming the trial courts decision awarding P10,000.00 attorneys fees to private respondent, we rule in favor of petitioner. The text of the trial courts decision does not mention the reason for the award of attorneys fees and the award was simply contained in the dispositive portion of the trial courts decision. It is now settled that the reasons or grounds for an award must be set forth in the decision of the court. As held in a long line of cases and recently in the case of Scott Consultants and Resource Development Corporation Inc. vs. CA : It is settled that the award of attorneys fees is the exception rather than the rule and counsels fees are not to be awarded everytime a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorneys fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture. Where granted, the court must explicitly state in the body of the decision, and not only in the dispositive portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorneys fees.vi[6] Since the trial courts decision failed to state the justification for the award of attorneys fees, it was a reversible error to affirm the same. With respect to the third issue raised in this petition, petitioner contends that she was able to substantiate her counterclaim for damages arising from private respondents wrongful acts consisting of the diversion of petitioners checks to private respondents address, and opening the mails consisting said checks (four checks amounting to a total of US$ 680.00) and refusing to turn them over to petitioner; as a consequence the said checks became stale and private respondent should be held liable in actual damages. In addition, private respondent had been spreading gossips in the community that petitioner is balasubas and that he would cause petitioner and her children to lose the benefits they are receiving from the insurance company. These actuations allegedly caused petitioner to be hospitalized and to incur therefore expenses of approximately P15,000.00. Petitioner thus seeks payment of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees. We find no error in the rejection of petitioners counterclaims. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence.vii[7] He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.viii[8] Respondent court ruled that while defendant (appellant therein) was able to present receipts attesting to the fact of her hospitalization, she was unable to establish a causal connection between her hospitalization and the mental anguish she allegedly suffered from the adverse partys actuations. The receipts were dated January and February 1989ix[9] but nowhere can it be deduced therein that the cause of petitioners hospitalization was in anyway related to private respondents alleged actuations; in fact the nature of the ailment is not disclosed. The mere fact that a complaint was filed against petitioner in November 1988 does not necessarily give rise to a cause of action for damages arising from the filing of the complaint.x[10] As regards the alleged diversion of the four checks, it is clear that private respondent received them in his capacity as counsel of petitioner and that