Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > May 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

089 Phil 76:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2695. May 28, 1951.]

FERMIN TABANDA, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and TIBURCIO ROSAL, Respondents.

Vicente Llanes, Floro Crisologo, Pedro Singson, Eloy B. Bello, Mariano G. Alagar, Faustino B. Tobia and Alfonso Rosal for Petitioner.

Vicente Paz and Manuel A. Argel for respondent Tiburcio Rosal.

SYLLABUS


ELECTION CONTESTS; COSTS; DISCRETION OF COURT. — In election contests, the court, under section 1 of Rule 131, has the power for special reasons to adjudge that either party shall pay the costs or that the same be divided equitably. Section 180 of the Revised Election Code, in stating that the court shall assess, levy and collect the expenses of an election protest as costs from the losing party, merely authorizes the court to tax the expenses of an election protest against the losing party, and was not intended to deprive the court of its discretion under section 1 of Rule 131. There is no inconsistency between the two provisions.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


In an election case between the herein petitioner, Fermin Tabanda, and the herein respondent, Tiburcio Rosal, the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur rendered a decision sustaining the election of respondent Rosal as mayor of San Vicente, Ilocos Sur, with a majority of three votes, and dismissing petitioner’s protest. Said court, considering that the protest was not wholly unfounded because the majority of twelve votes given to respondent Rosal by the municipal board of canvassers was reduced to three in the judicial revision, and in view of the equitable provision of section 1 of Rule of Court No. 131, ordered the petitioner to pay one half of the costs. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter court rendered a decision declaring petitioner elected as mayor of San Vicente, Ilocos Sur, with a majority of seven votes, and decreeing that every party shall bear his own expenses. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, praying that the decision of the Court of Appeals be reconsidered so as to sentence respondent Rosal to pay the costs in both instances, or at least in the first instance, was denied by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner filed a motion for clarification, whereupon the Court of Appeals, in its resolution of December 14, 1948, declared that every party shall bear his own expenses actually paid or incurred in the prosecution of their respective protest and counter-protest in the trial court and of their respective appeal in the Court of Appeals. The petitioner, with leave of the Court of Appeals, filed a second motion for reconsideration which was denied. The present petition for certiorari was instituted in the Supreme Court, alleging that the Court of Appeals ignored the law or gravely abused its discretion in not taxing the costs in both instances against respondent Rosal.

It is contended by the petitioner that the Revised Election Code, in section 180, provides that "in case the party who has paid the expenses and costs wins, the court shall assess, levy and collect the same as costs from the losing party," and that, consequently, it is mandatory on the court in an election case to assess the expenses and costs against the losing party. As a corrollary, it is argued that, although under section 1 of Rule 131, the court has the power for special reasons to adjudge "that either party shall pay the costs of an action, or that the same be divided, as may be equitable," said provision is not applicable to election cases, because Rule of Court No. 132 states that "these rules shall not apply to land registration, cadastral and election cases, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioner’s contentions are untenable. Under the old Election Law, in force on December 6, 1924, it was also provided that "if the party paying such expenses and costs shall be successful they shall be taxed by the court and entered and be collectible as a judgment against the defeated party." (Section 28, Act No. 3210, amending section 482 of Act No. 2711, as amended by Act No. 3030.) In the case of Mandac v. Samonte, 49 Phil 284, 322-323, decided on August 30, 1926, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Ordinarily, the defeated litigant is ordered to pay the costs, but section 487 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the courts, for special reasons, to order any of the parties to pay the costs of the suit, or to divide the costs between them as may be just. Taking into account the result of this contest, we are of the opinion that the parties, the protestant, the protestee, and the intervenor, must each pay the costs caused by his instance." The basis of the court for ordering in the Mandac v. Samonte case that each party should pay his own costs was section 487 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Placing side by side the provisions of the old Election Law and the Code of Civil Procedure relating to costs, and the corresponding provisions of the Revised Election Code and the present Rules of Court, we readily take notice of the substantial, if not exact, similarity between them.

We find no cogent reason for not applying section 1 of Rule 131 to election cases. There is no inconsistency between said rule and section 180 of the Revised Election Code. The latter provision, in stating that the court "shall assess, levy and collect the same as costs from the losing party," merely authorizes the court to tax the expenses of an election protest against the losing party. Without said statutory provisions, the court would have no power to include such expenses in the costs provided in the Rules of Court. We do not think that section 180 of the Revised Election Code was intended to deprive the court of its discretion under section 1 of Rule 131. Said discretion, unless expressly taken away in specific cases, undoubtedly has salutary and equitable effects, in that the court may determine the propriety and justness of imposing the costs authorized in section 180 of the Revised Election Code against one or both parties, depending upon the circumstances of each election case. It cannot be assumed that a defeated protestee, for example, is palpably not entitled to be declared winner by the proper board of canvassers, or that a defeated protestant is patently without any ground for filing his protest, because there are countless instances in which, as in the case at bar, the election of a party is sustained by a very bare majority. Much less can it be assumed that a candidate whose election is proclaimed, has influenced the proper authorities in their official acts. Upon the other hand, we cannot outright condemn, by the imposition of costs against him, a candidate by merely filing an election protest, as this may prevent or discourage parties from contesting the election of their rivals in proper cases.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed without costs. So ordered.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951 - TOMAS L. CABILI, ET AL. v. VICENTE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2926 May 11, 1951 - PAZ JARIN, ET AL. v. DANIEL SARINAS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-3254 May 11, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO NATE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2260 May 14, 1951 - HONORATO DE VERA v. JOSE C. FERNANDEZ

    088 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BENITO GUHITING, ET AL.

    088 Phil 672

  • G.R. Nos. L-3112 & L-3113 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEVERINO NOLASCO

    088 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-2236 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS CRUZ

    088 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-3047 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUADALUPE ZAPATA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 688

  • G.R. Nos. L-3248 & L-3249 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO AGUILAR

    088 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ

    088 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-3824 May 16, 1951 - BENJAMIN v. HON. MARIANO C. MELENDRES

    088 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

    088 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-2755 May 18, 1951 - JOHNNY CHAUSINTEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-3345 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS S. TAPANG

    088 Phil 721

  • G.R. Nos. L-3386 & L-3387 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO IBALI

    088 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-3497 May 18, 1951 - VALENTINA CUEVAS v. PILAR ACHACOSO

    088 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

    088 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    088 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2311 May 21, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NADURATA

    088 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-2525 May 21, 1951 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. TOMAS DE VERA

    088 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951 - CIPRIANA GONZALES v. PURIFICACION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3325 May 21, 1951 - FELIX BARRACA v. SOCORRO ZAYCO

    088 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-2155 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKADATO ALAMADA

    089 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2834 May 23, 1951 - ENCARNACION CAPARAS v. NICASIO YATCO

    089 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ICARO

    089 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER

    089 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

    089 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-3324 May 23, 1951 - QUINCIANO ISAAC v. TACHUAN LEONG

    089 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3430 May 23, 1951 - PAZ E. SIGUION v. GO TECSON

    089 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3495 May 23, 1951 - ISIDORE FALEK v. NATIVIDAD GANDIONGCO DE SINGSON

    089 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. MARIA KABAKAW

    089 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-3561 May 23, 1951 - CESAR REYES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO

    089 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-3621 May 23, 1951 - DOMINGO T. DIKIT v. RAMON A. YCASIANO

    089 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3694 May 23, 1951 - LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO. v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    089 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-2294 May 25, 1951 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN

    089 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1594 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. HONORIO CABILING

    089 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 - MATILDE MENCIANO v. PAZ NERI SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-2645 May 28, 1951 - IN RE: ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    089 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-2841 May 28, 1951 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL Co. v. LUDOVICO ESTRADA

    089 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2847 May 28, 1951 - MAXIMINO VALDEZ v. MAGDALENA MENDOZA

    089 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2959 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMAZORA

    089 Phil 87

  • G.R. Nos. L-3267 & L-3268 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SABADO

    089 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3339 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CRISPIN RODILLAS

    089 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-3490 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FILEMON CARLON

    089 Phil 105

  • G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951 - LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO. v. COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS

    089 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    089 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1743 May 29, 1951 - DOMINADOR NICOLAS v. VICENTA MATIAS

    089 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

    089 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-1364 May 30, 1951 - LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE v. DONATO OSORIO

    089 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-1866 May 30, 1951 - QUIRINO RANJO v. LEONITA PAYOMO

    089 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-2100 May 30, 1951 - GERARDO VASQUEZ v. PATROCINIO GARCIA

    089 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-2263 May 30, 1951 - PAZ Y. OCAMPO v. CONRADO POTENCIANO

    089 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2474 May 30, 1951 - MARIANO ANDAL v. EDUVIGIS MACARAIG

    089 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-2552 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO DIWA

    089 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2586 May 30, 1951 - ANITA TOMACRUZ v. BEATRIZ B. VALERO

    089 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

    089 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2715 May 30, 1951 - TERESA ALBERTO v. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA

    089 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-2819 May 30, 1951 - MARCIANA ESCOTO v. BENITO M. ARCILLA

    089 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES VARELA

    089 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-3004 May 30, 1951 - BENITA TOMIAS v. CONRADO TOMIAS

    089 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO

    089 Phil 220

  • G.R. Nos. L-3491-93 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO HAMIANA

    089 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAGNAYE

    089 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4179 May 30, 1951 - CRISANTO DE BORJA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    089 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951 - NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA v. LORENZO B. ANDRADA

    089 Phil 252