Del Rosario v. Bayona
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners were plaintiffs in a civil case for recovery of real estate against respondent Carlos Sandico. The Court of Appeals required petitioners to pay P3,944 to Sandico within 90 days and surrender possession of the land. Upon Sandico's refusal to accept the payment, petitioners deposited the sum with the clerk of court and moved for possession, which was granted. Sandico appealed to the Supreme Court. Procedural History: The Supreme Court rendered a confirmatory decision on December 29, 1949, adding "with costs against the appellees." Sandico filed an amended bill of costs for P394. Petitioners objected, but the clerk of court issued a writ of execution. The clerk of court taxed the costs on December 20, 1951. Petitioners appealed this taxation to the respondent judge, who sustained it on January 16, 1952. Petitioners filed pleadings for an appeal from the judge's order, but their appeal was disapproved on March 4, 1952. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to give due course to their appeal from the order sustaining the taxation of costs.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge erred in disapproving the appeal from his order approving the taxation of costs made by the clerk of court. Whether the writ of execution issued by the clerk of court for the payment of costs was premature and therefore null and void.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. The respondent Judge is ordered to give due course to the appeal interposed by the petitioners from the order sustaining the taxation of costs. Costs are against respondent Carlos Sandico.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disapproving the appeal from the taxation of costs: The Supreme Court held that an order sustaining the taxation of costs made by the clerk of court is final in character and not merely interlocutory. As such, it can be appealed to prevent its enforcement by execution. The Court noted that unless set aside, the payment of costs shall be enforced by execution, and the only way to prevent such execution is by filing a timely appeal. The Court cited its previous ruling in Tanega vs. Nazareno (73 Phil., 354) which entertained appeals of this nature. The petitioners herein complied with the provisions of Section 8, Rule 131, by appealing the clerk's taxation to the court, and subsequently attempting to appeal the court's order sustaining the taxation. The disapproval of this subsequent appeal was deemed erroneous. On the issue of the premature writ of execution: The Court acknowledged the claim that the writ of execution was premature, having been issued before the costs were taxed as required by Section 8 of Rule 131. However, the Court stated that whether the writ is valid or not for having been prematurely issued is a matter that should be looked into when the case is decided on its merits. The present petition for mandamus was focused on compelling the judge to give due course to the appeal from the order on taxation of costs, not on the validity of the execution itself at this stage.
Main Doctrine
An order of the court sustaining the taxation of costs made by the clerk of court is final in character and may be appealed to prevent enforcement by execution.