GR 47928; (October, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47928 ; October 30, 1941
ANTERO TANEGA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAXIMINO NAZARENO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Antero Tanega, sued the defendant, Maximino Nazareno, in the Court of First Instance of Cavite to recover possession of a portion of land. The trial court ordered a government surveyor to resurvey the lot, with the understanding that the plaintiff would advance the expenses, which would later be taxed as costs to be paid by the losing party. The trial court ultimately absolved the defendant from the complaint without any pronouncement as to costs. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellant “with costs against the appellee.” The clerk of the Court of Appeals taxed the costs in that court at P84. Upon the record’s return to the trial court, the plaintiff filed a bill of costs for both courts totaling P314.77. The defendant objected. The clerk of the Court of First Instance taxed the costs at P224.96, which included the P84 from the Court of Appeals and P90 advanced by the plaintiff for the resurvey. The defendant appealed this taxation to the trial court, which sustained the clerk’s decision. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the costs awarded by the Court of Appeals referred only to the costs in that appellate court.
ISSUE
When a judgment of the trial court absolving the defendant without a special pronouncement as to costs is reversed by the Court of Appeals, which renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellant “with costs against the appellee,” do the costs so awarded include those incurred in the Court of First Instance?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court, ruling that the costs awarded by the Court of Appeals included the costs from both the appellate court and the Court of First Instance. The Court based its decision on Section 1 of Rule 131 (formerly section 487 of Act No. 190 ), which states that costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course unless the court, for special reasons, adjudges otherwise. Since the plaintiff was the party that finally prevailed and the Court of Appeals expressly awarded costs to the plaintiff without any qualification, the phrase “with costs” in its order of reversal must be construed to mean all costs of suit from its commencement to its termination. The Court cited authority (15 C.J. 260; 20 C.J.S. 590) that, in such circumstances, the words “with costs” in an appellate court’s order of reversal mean all costs made in both the appellate and lower courts. The order of the trial court was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.