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. ISIDORO FOJAS, protestant-appellant, vs. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS, ANDRES SANTA MARIA, JOSEFINA PHODACA, SALVADOR MARINO, PEDRO ARENAS, GREGORIO N. GARCIA, AND ISAURO SANTIAGO, protestees; GREGORIO N. GARCIA, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

An election protest was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila by Isidoro Fojas and nine other Nacionalista Party candidates for councilor against Gregorio N. Garcia and nine other Liberal Party candidates. During the proceedings, the protestants continued the case only against Isauro Santiago and Gregorio N. Garcia, dropping the other protestees. The trial court decided in favor of Santiago and Garcia. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision, declaring appellant Isidoro Fojas elected in lieu of appellee Gregorio N. Garcia and assessing “costs against the appellee.” Subsequently, appellant Fojas filed a bill of costs in the trial court against appellee Garcia, including items for the complaint, court appearance fees, and various election expenses (revisors’ fees, chairman’s fee, and transportation/handling of ballot boxes) totaling P5,110.00. The trial court granted the ordinary costs (items 1-3) but disallowed the election expenses (items 4-6), holding that such expenses under Section 180 of the Revised Election Code are recoverable only by a winning contestee or appellee, not by a winning protestant or appellant. Fojas appealed this disallowance.

ISSUE

Whether the winning protestant-appellant, Isidoro Fojas, is entitled to recover from the losing protestee-appellee, Gregorio N. Garcia, the expenses incidental to the election protest (specifically items 4, 5, and 6 of the bill of costs) under Section 180 of the Revised Election Code.

RULING

Yes, but only proportionately. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order disallowing items 4, 5, and 6. The Court held that Section 180 of the Revised Election Code, which states 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,” applies to any winning “party,” not just a protestee or appellee. Therefore, a winning protestant is also entitled to recover expenses and costs. The bond requirement for the protestant is for good faith and to secure payment to the protestee, but it does not relieve a losing protestee from the obligation to pay the winning protestant’s expenses. The Court also ruled that the Court of Appeals’ award of “costs” includes “expenses” as provided in Section 180. However, since the protest was originally filed by ten protestants against ten protestees and proceeded as such for most of the case, it would be unfair to charge appellee Garcia with all expenses. Consequently, the Court ordered appellee Garcia to pay only one-tenth of the expenses under items 4, 5, and 6. The trial court’s allowance of items 1, 2, and 3 (ordinary costs) was affirmed, as the appellee did not appeal that part of the order.