EN
BANC
ASUNCION
CONUI-OMEGA,
Protestant-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-22821
August
15, 1967
-versus-
CESAR
SAMSON,
Protestee-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
REYES,
J.B.L., J.:
Direct appeal from an Order
of the Court of First Instance of Leyte [Ormoc] in its Election Case
No.
3-O, approving a taxation of costs against appellant, Cesar Samson.
The background of the
case is as follows:
By final decision of
this Court in Case G. R. No. L-21910, protestant-appellee Asuncion
Conui-Omega
was declared to have obtained a plurality of ten [10] votes over
appellant-protestee
Cesar Samson. Costs were imposed against the latter. Upon the case
being
remanded to the Court below for execution, appellee submitted a bill of
costs for P1,236.10, of which the Clerk taxed only P346.10 against
appellant
Samson. The former protested the taxation in so far as the same failed
to include P400.00 for a transcript of stenographic notes, and P300.00
for the printing of her brief; and she appealed to the Court of First
Instance.
The latter sustained the appeal and ordered protestee-appellant to pay
not only the 346.10 allowed by the Clerk, but also the additional items
claimed by Conui-Omega.
His Motion for
Reconsideration
having proved fruitless, Samson resorted to this Court.
This issue now is
limited
to whether appellee is entitled to recover from the losing party the
cost
of a copy of the transcript and the cost of printing her brief on
appeal.
We find for appellant.
Section 11, paragraph [d], Rule 131 of the old Rules of Court, as well
as Section 11[d] of Rule 142 of the Revised Rules of Court,
specifically
provide as follows:
"Sec. 11. Costs
in Court of Appeals and in Supreme Court. - In an action or
proceeding
pending in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the prevailing
party may recover the following costs, and no other:
xxx
"[d] No allowance
shall
be made to the prevailing party in the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals
for the brief or written or printed arguments of his attorney, or
copies
thereof, aside from the thirty or fifty pesos above stated."
These rules apply to election
cases in suppletory character by express prescription of Rule 143 of
the
Revised Rules, since the Election Code is silent on the point; hence,
the
items claimed by protestant-appellee should be disallowed.
Appellee and the Court
below invoke Our ruling in election case, Tiongco vs. Porras, G. R. No.
L-15452, October 11, 1963 wherein the fees the Commissioners who
revised
the ballots were allowed as costs. These Commissioners, however, were
officers
appointed by the Court and their fees were recoverable under the Rules
of Court, section 11(f) of Rule 131 [old, as well as sec. 11(f) of the
Revised Rule 142], that expressly provide:
"(f) The lawful fees
of a commissioner in an action may also be taxed against the defeated
party,
or apportioned as justice requires."
Moreover,
the payment for
a copy of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken at the trial
was
not really indispensable to appellee, since she or her counsel could
have
utilized the original transcript attached to original records. As for
her
printed brief, the cost thereof redounded to her sole and exclusive
benefit.
While contestant in an election case undertakes to pay for all expenses
and costs incidental to the protest, such obligation is subject to
regulation
by the Court, and We do not deem that the imposition of the items
herein
claimed are justified in the absence of a finding that the original
contest
was without justification or that it was filed in bad faith.
WHEREFORE, the Orders
appealed from are reversed, and the original taxation of costs
approved.
No costs.
Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.Concepcion, C.J.
and Dizon, J., on leave, did not take part. |