Torres v. Ribo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bernardo Torres filed an election protest against Mamerto Ribo concerning the office of Provincial Governor. The Court of First Instance of Leyte declared Mamerto S. Ribo as the duly elected Provincial Governor and ordered the protestant, Bernardo Torres, to pay the costs and incidental expenses. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. After the judgment became final, the protestee, Mamerto Ribo, submitted a bill of expenses and costs amounting to P8,220.50. The protestant opposed this bill, but the court disallowed P5,000 for attorney's fees and P200 for the protestee's brief, approving the rest of the items totaling P3,020.50. A motion for reconsideration by the protestant was denied. The Appeal: The protestant appealed the order of the Court of First Instance, primarily arguing that certain items allowed as costs, specifically commissioners' fees, transcript of stenographic notes, and expenses for the protestee's brief in the counter-protest, were not legally recoverable. He also contended that costs should have been divided, given that his protest, while unsuccessful, had merit as indicated by the reduction of the appellee's majority.
Issue(s)
Whether commissioners' fees, transcript of stenographic notes, and expenses for the protestee's brief in the counter-protest are recoverable as costs in an election protest. Whether costs should be divided between the parties, despite one party winning, if the protest was not entirely without merit.
Ruling
The appealed order is modified. The items for the transcript of stenographic notes in the sum of P375 and for the protestee's brief in the counter-protest in the sum of P125 are disallowed. The rest of the approved costs stand. The case is decided without costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that commissioners' fees are proper expenses incident to the necessity of recanvassing ballots and are taxable under Section 180 of the Revised Election Code. By analogy with fees of commissioners in other actions, these fees are considered embraced within the terms "expenses and costs" and are collectible against the losing party. However, the Court disallowed the item for the transcript of stenographic notes, reasoning that the protestee was not compelled to obtain a copy as it was part of the court's record and available to the parties. Similarly, the expense for the protestee's brief in the counter-protest was disallowed, as Section 11 of Rule 131 expressly prohibits allowances for the prevailing party's brief. On Issue 2: The Court found the argument that costs should be divided untenable. Under Section 180 of the Rules of Court (likely a typo and should refer to the Revised Election Code or Rules of Court on Costs), costs are generally assessed against the losing party. While the court has discretion to divide costs equitably for special reasons, the mere reduction of the winning party's majority does not, in itself, constitute a special reason sufficient to deviate from the general rule. The protestee still won by a substantial majority of 423 votes, thus remaining the losing party in the context of cost assessment.
Main Doctrine
In election contests, costs are generally imposed upon the losing party. However, the court possesses the discretion to equitably divide the costs if special reasons warrant such an apportionment. Certain expenses, such as the prevailing party's brief and transcripts of stenographic notes that are part of the court record, are not recoverable as costs.