Montero v. Guerrero
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In the 1955 elections for Lieutenant Governor of the subprovince of Aurora, Quezon, Pedro C. Montero and Pedro V. Guerrero were candidates. Following the canvass of votes, Pedro V. Guerrero was proclaimed the winner with 2,467 votes, while Pedro C. Montero received 2,232 votes. 2. Procedural History: Pedro C. Montero filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, alleging fraud and irregularities in the vote counting. Pedro V. Guerrero filed an answer, a counterclaim for damages, and a counter-protest. Subsequently, Guerrero withdrew his counter-protest, citing a sufficient majority vote. Montero then filed a petition to dismiss his protest, stating he had lost interest. The court granted the dismissal with costs to the protestant. Guerrero submitted a bill of expenses and costs, which the trial court approved. Montero appealed this approval. 3. The Petition: The appellant, Pedro C. Montero, appealed the trial court's order approving the appellee's bill of expenses and costs. The appeal argued that certain items, specifically attorney's fees and expenses related to employing counsel, as well as expenses incurred for the counter-protest (bringing ballot boxes and commissioner's fees), were improperly taxed as costs or expenses under the relevant rules and statutes. The Supreme Court reviewed whether these items were legally recoverable.
Issue(s)
Whether attorney's fees and expenses for employing counsel are taxable as costs or expenses in an election contest. Whether expenses incurred in connection with a withdrawn counter-protest are taxable as costs or expenses. Whether the protestee-appellee is entitled to recover costs for filing the answer and appearance, despite the withdrawal of both the protest and counter-protest.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the order of the trial court, disallowing certain items from the bill of expenses and costs. The Court ruled that attorney's fees and expenses for transportation and subsistence in employing counsel are not taxable costs. Expenses incurred for bringing ballot boxes and commissioner's fees related to the counter-protest were also disallowed because the counter-protest was withdrawn. However, the costs for filing the answer and for the appearance of the protestee and his counsel were allowed, as these are specifically taxable under the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the taxability of attorney's fees and expenses for employing counsel: The Court held that attorney's fees and expenses for transportation and subsistence incurred in employing counsel are not taxable as costs or expenses under Section 1801 of the Revised Election Code. Election contests are governed by the Rules of Court regarding costs. Section 10 of Rule 131 enumerates taxable costs in the Court of First Instance, and attorney's fees, traveling expenses, and subsistence for employing counsel are not included. The Court cited the case of Belarmino, et al. vs. Alihan, et al., stating that "expenses" in election contests refer to actual expenses connected with the trial, not those incurred in preparing for trial or defending a case. Therefore, these items must be disallowed. On expenses incurred in connection with a withdrawn counter-protest: The Court disallowed the items for bringing ballot boxes and commissioner's fees for the revision of ballots. Although these are proper expenses incidental to an election contest, the Court noted that they were incurred in connection with the counter-protest, which was withdrawn before the protest itself was withdrawn. The Court reasoned that it would have been different if these expenses were incurred by reason of the protest. Since the counter-protest was withdrawn, these expenses are not recoverable. On costs for filing the answer and appearance: The Court affirmed that the protestee-appellee is entitled to recover the costs for filing the answer and for the appearance of himself and his attorney. These items are specifically included in Section 10 of Rule 131 as taxable costs. The argument that no party prevailed due to the withdrawal of both the protest and counter-protest was rejected. The Court pointed out that the protest was dismissed "with costs to the protestant," and the protestant did not appeal this order. Furthermore, the withdrawal occurred when only a few precincts remained to be examined, and the result would not have altered the election outcome, implying the appellee had effectively won by a majority.
Main Doctrine
Attorney's fees and expenses incurred for transportation and subsistence in employing counsel are not taxable as costs or expenses in election contests. Actual expenses connected with the trial, not those incurred in preparing for trial or defending a case, are allowable. Expenses incurred in connection with a withdrawn counter-protest are also not recoverable.