Tavora v. Tavora
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellees sought to annul a deed of donation executed by the deceased Maxima Zarate in favor of the defendant-appellant, Antonia Tavora. Procedural History: The defendant was declared in default by the Court of First Instance (CFI) after failing to answer the complaint. A petition for certiorari to set aside the default order was denied by the Supreme Court. The CFI rendered judgment dismissing the complaint without pronouncement as to costs. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the CFI's judgment with costs against the appellants. Subsequently, the defendant filed a bill of costs in the CFI, which was denied in its entirety. The defendant appealed this denial to the CA, which certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved questions of law. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the CA's denial of the defendant's bill of costs, seeking to recover costs incurred in the CFI, CA, and Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the pronouncement of "with costs against the appellants" by the Court of Appeals includes costs incurred in both the appellate court and the trial court. Whether the docket fee paid for a petition for certiorari to set aside an order of default, which was denied, is a recoverable cost. What specific items of expense are recoverable as costs by a party who was declared in default in the trial court but became the prevailing party on appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the order of the lower court denying the bill of costs in toto, and entered another order requiring the appellees to pay the total sum of P30.00 by way of costs in Civil Case No. 12792 and CA-G.R. No. 15872. No pronouncement as to costs in the Supreme Court appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the pronouncement of "with costs" by an appellate court, when not qualified, should be construed to mean all costs incurred in both the appellate court and the court below, from the commencement of the suit to its termination. Citing Tanega v. Nazareno, the Court reiterated that "Where ... the prevailing party is entitled to costs as a matter of course, the words 'with costs' of an order of reversal or affirmance in the court of appeals will be construed to mean all costs made in both the appellate court and the court below (15 C.J. 260; 20 C.J.S. 590)." Therefore, the Court of Appeals' affirmation "with costs against the appellants" included costs from both the appellate court and the trial court. This interpretation ensures a comprehensive recovery of expenses for the prevailing party, streamlining the process rather than requiring separate pronouncements for each judicial level. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the docket fee paid to the Supreme Court for a petition for certiorari to set aside an order of default is not a recoverable cost within the main civil case. While the certiorari petition was an "offshoot" of the civil case, it partook the nature of an independent suit. This distinction is crucial because costs are generally awarded in connection with the specific action where they were incurred. A separate extraordinary remedy, even if related, is treated as distinct for the purpose of cost allocation. The denial of the certiorari petition further solidified its independent nature and the non-recoverability of its associated fees within the main case's costs. On Issue 3: Conformably with Sections 10 and 11 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the appellant was entitled to recover P20.00 for counsel's attendance in the Court of Appeals, as her counsel was allowed to appear and argue orally there, despite the default order, because appellees' counsel withdrew his objection. However, other expenses claimed, such as those for taking the deposition of the defendant and procuring certified copies of pleadings for the appeal, were disallowed because, "being in default, defendant was not entitled to have the same documents presented in evidence or included as part of the records of the appealed case," as explicitly stated in the CA's Resolution of April 4, 1956. In the trial court, P10.00 for counsel's attendance was recoverable because the defendant's counsel had filed motions before the declaration of default. The P25.00 for alleged expenses in taking depositions of two witnesses was also disallowed, as it did not appear that these depositions were properly produced in evidence as required by the Rules. This highlights that even a prevailing party faces limitations on cost recovery if procedural requirements, particularly those affected by a default order, are not strictly met for certain expenses.
Main Doctrine
Costs awarded by an appellate court, in the absence of qualification, include all costs made in both the appellate court and the court below. However, costs do not include docket fees paid for an independent suit, even if it is an offshoot of the main case.