Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > April 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4790 April 29, 1953 - ISIDORO FOJAS, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL.

092 Phil 983:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4790. April 29, 1953.]

ISIDORO FOJAS, ELVIRA MONTENEGRO, MARCIANO SANTOS, RUPERTO CRISTOBAL, BUENAVENTURA EVANGELISTA, DIONISIO BANTIN, JR., AMADO V. DE LA MERCED, AND ERIBERTO REMIGIO, protestants. ISIDRO FOJAS, Protestant-Appellant, v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS, ANDRES SANTA MARIA, JOSEFINA PHODACA, SALVADOR MARIÑO, PEDRO ARENAS, GREGORIO N. GARCIA, AND ISAURO SANTIAGO, protestees; GREGORIO N. GARCIA, Protestee-Appellee.

Antonio Barredo and Manuel B. Pineda for Appellant.

Placido C. Ramos for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. ELECTION LAW; ELECTION EXPENSES; WHO MAY COLLECT ELECTION EXPENSES. — That appellant is entitled to collect his expenses from appellee, the losing party, is obvious from the provision of section 180 of the Revised Election Code 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." It is erroneous to hold that it is only the protestee or appellee who may collect his election expense from the protestant or appellant who loses, because the law mentions "the party" who wins, and not the protestee or appellee.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; COSTS INCLUDE EXPENSES. — It is untenable to contend that the decision of the Court of Appeals awarded in favor of the appellant only "costs", without mentioning "expenses", because section 180 of the Revised Election Code provides that the "expenses and costs" shall be assessed by the court as "costs" to the losing party, with the result that the decision of the Court of Appeals awarding costs, must be deemed to include also expenses.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRO RATA ASSESSMENT. — Inasmuch, however, as the election protest herein was filed by ten protestees and the proceedings continued with reference to all said parties up to the point when a few precincts remained to be examined by the trial court, we are inclined to hold the appellee liable for only one tenth of the expenses itemized in the bill of costs filed by the appellant. It is clearly unfair to assess all the expenses against the appellee, who was merely one of the ten protestees.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


An election protest was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila by the herein protestant-appellant, Isidoro Fojas, and nine others against the herein protestee-appellee, Gregorio N. Garcia, and nine others, the protestants being the candidates of the Nacionalista Party and the protestees the official candidates of the Liberal Party for the positions of councilor of Manila in the 1947 general elections. In the course of the proceedings, when only a few more precincts were to be examined by the court and at the instance of the protestants, the case was continued only against Isauro Santiago and Gregorio N. Garcia, the other protestees being dropped from the case. The court rendered a decision in favor of Isauro Santiago and Gregorio N. Garcia and against all the protestants. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the trial court was modified, and the appellant, Isidoro Fojas, was declared elected in lieu of the appellee, Gregorio N. Garcia. The Court of Appeals assessed the "costs against the appellee."cralaw virtua1aw library

In due time, the appellant filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a bill of costs against the appellee, for the following items:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. For the complaint P8.00

2. For appearance in the Court of First Instance

of Manila 10.00

3. For appearance in the Court of Appeals 20.00

4. Fees paid to the revisors at eight pesos (P8.00)

per revisor, two revisors for each precincts,

at a total of TWO THOUSAND AND NINETY TWO

precincts 4,672.00

5. For Clerk of Court who acted as chairman for

sometime 200.00

6. For transportation, handling and custody of

ballot boxes 200.00

Total 5,110.00

In its order of January 17, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Manila granted items 1, 2 and 3, but disallowed items 4, 5 and 6. The court held that "if the party who wins in the protest or appeal is the protestant or appellant as in the instant case, he is only entitled to the ordinary costs of the suit as provided in Sections 10 and 11, Rule 131, of the Rules of Court, but not to the expenses and costs mentioned in Section 180 of the Revised Election Code, which are recoverable only by the contestee or appellee in case he wins." From this order, the protestant, Isidoro Foja, has appealed.

Section 180 of the Revised Election Code provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Before the courts shall take cognizance of a protest or a counter-protest or admit an appeal, the party who has filed the pleading or interposed the appeal shall file a bond with two sureties satisfactory to the court and for such amount as it may fix, to answer for the payment of all expenses and costs incidental to said motion or appeal, or shall deposit with the court cash in lieu of the bond or both as the court may order. The court in which contest is pending shall for good reason order from time to time that the amount of the bond or cash deposit be increased or decreased, or order the disposition of such deposit as the course of the contest may require. 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."cralaw virtua1aw library

That the herein appellant is entitled to collect his expenses from the losing party, the herein appellee, Gregorio N. Garcia, is obvious from the provision 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." The trial court erred in holding that it is only the protestee or appellee who may collect his election expenses from the protestant or appellant who loses, because the law mentions "the party" who wins, and not the protestee or appellee. The appellee stresses the fact that the intention of the law is as construed by the trial court, since the protestant or appellant is required to file a bond answerable for all expenses and costs. This is erroneous, because the bond requirement has been made evidently to show the good faith of the protestant or appellant and to secure the payment to the protestee or appellee of any expenses the latter may incur in connection with a proceeding not of his own choice or initiative. Although the protestee or appellee is not called upon to put up any bond, and the protestant or appellant is thereby left without any security for the collection of his expenses, section 180 of the Revised Election Code does not relieve the former from the obligation of paying costs and expenses to the protestant or appellant who wins.

It is contended for the appellee that the decision of the Court of Appeals awarded in favor of the appellant only "costs", without mentioning "expenses." This is untenable, because section 180 of the Revised Election Code provides that the "expenses and costs" shall be assessed by the court as "costs" against the losing party, with the result that the decision of the Court of Appeals awarding costs, must be deemed to include also expenses.

Inasmuch, however, as the election protest herein was filed by ten protestants against ten protestees, and the proceedings continued with reference to all said parties up to the point when a few precincts remained to be examined by the trial court, we are inclined to hold the appellee liable for only one-tenth of the expenses itemized in the bill of costs filed by the appellant. It is clearly unfair to assess all the expenses against the appellee, who was merely one of the ten protestees.

As the appellee did not appeal from the order of the trial court allowing items 1, 2 and 3 of the bill of costs, the same must stand.

Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed as regards items 1, 2 and 3, but reversed as regards items 4, 5 and 6, and the protestee- appellee, Gregorio N. Garcia, is hereby ordered to pay one-tenth of the expenses specified under the latter items. So ordered.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Reyes, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, 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






April-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-4215-16 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO DOSAL

    092 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-5198 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANGLIMA MAHLON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-5539 April 17, 1953 - RUPERTA BOOL v. PERPETUO MENDOZA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-5587 April 17, 1953 - FELIXBERTO MEDEL, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO ETC., ET AL.

    092 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-5686 April 17, 1953 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-5770 April 17, 1953 - BRICCIO MADRID, ET AL. v. HON. ANATOLIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-5790 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DE LA CRUZ

    092 Phil 906

  • G.R. No. L-6103 April 17, 1953 - FORTUNATO MARQUIALA, ET AL. v. HON. FILOMENO YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-4353 April 20, 1953 - TAN KAY KO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-4476 April 20, 1953 - SAMUEL J. WILSON v. B. H. BERKENKOTTER

    092 Phil 918

  • G.R. No. L-4647 April 20, 1953 - FLOR VILLASOR v. AGAPITO VILLASOR

    092 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-5065 April 20, 1953 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL. v. HONORATO TESORO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-5242 April 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO B. IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. L-5750 April 20, 1953 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY

    092 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-4940 April 22, 1953 - MADRIGAL & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    092 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-5163 April 22, 1953 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-5888 April 22, 1953 - ANTONIO T. CARRASCOSO v. JOSE FUENTEBELLA

    092 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-4831 April 24, 1953 - NATIVIDAD SIDECO, ET AL. v. ANGELA AZNAR, ET AL.

    092 Phil 952

  • G.R. No. L-5515 April 24, 1953 - FELIPA FERIA, ET AL. v. GERONIMO T. SUVA

    092 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-4814 April 27, 1953 - LEA AROJO DE DUMELOD, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA VILARAY

    092 Phil 967

  • G.R. No. L-5157 April 27, 1953 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 969

  • G.R. No. L-5675 April 27, 1953 - ANTONIO CARBALLO v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 974

  • G.R. No. L-5876 April 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHU CHI

    092 Phil 977

  • G.R. No. L-4144 April 29, 1953 - GEORGE S. CORBET v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-4790 April 29, 1953 - ISIDORO FOJAS, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-4802 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: . KIAT CHUN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 987

  • G.R. No. L-4948 April 29, 1953 - JUDGE OF THE CFI OF BAGUIO v. JOSE VALLES

    092 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-5062 April 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASS’N.

    092 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-5099 April 29, 1953 - BEATRIZ CABAHUG-MENDOZA v. VICENTE VARELA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-5104 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: OSCAR ANGLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 1006

  • G.R. Nos. L-5190-93 April 29, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO BAYSA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-5206 April 29, 1953 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. PHIL. LABOR ORG., ET AL.

    092 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-5394 April 29, 1953 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    092 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-5470 April 29, 1953 - WOODCRAFT WORKS, LTD. v. SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1021

  • G.R. No. L-5558 April 29, 1953 - ENRIQUE D. MANABAT, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1025

  • G.R. No. L-5788 April 29, 1953 - CHUA BUN POK, ET AL. v. JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE MANILA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1029

  • G.R. No. L-5826 April 29, 1953 - VICENTE CAGRO, ET AL. v. PELAGIO CAGRO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-5948 April 29, 1953 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-5969 April 29, 1953 - ALFREDO P. DALAO v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    092 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-5989 April 29, 1953 - APOLINARIO DUQUE, ET AL. v. L. PASICOLAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1044

  • G.R. No. L-6079 April 29, 1953 - SOFRONIO GAMMAD, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1048

  • G.R. No. L-6177 April 29, 1953 - GABINO LOZADA, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-4896 April 30, 1953 - APOLINARIO CRUZ v. PATROCINIO KELLY

    092 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-5452 April 30, 1953 - FLORENTINO KIAMKO, ET AL. v. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1057