Go v. Saint Jude Catholic School Manila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint for damages filed by petitioners Atty. Melita Go and Wayne Go against Saint Jude Catholic School Manila, Inc., Fr. Marcelino Nicasio, SVD, Fatima de Guzman, and Spouses Eugene Lee and Joanne Lee. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners, awarding them actual damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The respondents were found to be principally and solidarily liable, with the Spouses Lee being subsidiarily liable. Procedural History: Following the RTC's decision, petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of execution and presented a verified bill of costs totaling PHP 348,014.00. The RTC, in its February 23, 2021 Order, initially denied the motion, citing issues with the appeal period. After the decision attained finality, petitioners filed a Second Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. The RTC, in its July 21, 2021 Resolution, granted the writ of execution but denied the claimed costs of suit, stating that these amounts were not passed upon during the trial and would effectively alter the executed decision. A subsequent Motion for Partial Reconsideration was also denied by the RTC in its September 10, 2021 Resolution. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the RTC's Resolutions that denied their claimed items of cost of suit. They argue that the RTC committed a reversible error in denying these costs, contending that they are not seeking additional attorney's fees but rather legitimate expenses incurred as costs of suit, distinct from the attorney's fees awarded as damages. Petitioners maintain that their claim for costs is in conformity with the trial court's decision and the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 142, Section 8. Respondents, in their comments, argue that the petition should be denied as it assails an order of execution and that the claimed costs are either improper, excessive, or not allowable under the Rules.
Issue(s)
Whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the correct remedy to challenge a trial court's denial of items in a bill of costs. Whether attorney's fees (specifically appearance fees) can be recovered simultaneously as damages and as costs of suit beyond the rates fixed in Rule 142. Whether the Regional Trial Court Judge correctly followed the procedure for the taxation of costs in superior courts.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, which is ORDERED to direct its Clerk of Court to assess the costs of suit in accordance with Rule 142.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that Rule 45 is the correct remedy. While Rule 41, Section 1 generally prohibits appeals from orders of execution, a ruling on the taxation of costs is final in character regarding those specific items. Citing Del Rosario v. Hon. Bayona, the Court found no reason why such a ruling cannot be appealed if a party disagrees with the costs as taxed. The denial of the items in the bill of costs presented a pure question of law regarding the interpretation of Rule 142. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that attorney's fees cannot be recovered simultaneously as damages and as costs beyond the statutory limits. Rule 142, Section 10 provides an exclusive list of recoverable costs ('and no other'). While Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows attorney's fees as damages, Section 6 of Rule 142 clarifies that such fees have no relation to the fees charged by an attorney to a client. Consequently, for counsel's attendance in the RTC, the prevailing party is limited to the flat rate of PHP 20.00 'down to and including final judgment' as prescribed by Rule 142, Section 10(b), regardless of actual appearance fees paid. On Issue 3: The Court found that the RTC Judge committed a procedural error by personally denying the costs instead of directing the Clerk of Court to perform the taxation. Under Rule 142, Section 8, in superior courts, costs must be taxed by the Clerk of Court upon five days' written notice to the adverse party. This assessment is a condition precedent to the obligation to pay costs or their inclusion in an execution. The Judge only takes part in the process if a party appeals the Clerk's taxation to the court; thus, the Judge should have directed the Clerk to make an assessment based on the rates specified in the Rules.
Main Doctrine
The list of recoverable costs in Rule 142, Section 10 is exclusive ('and no other'). Attorney's fees in their extraordinary concept (as indemnity for damages) are distinct from attorney's fees as costs; thus, a party awarded attorney's fees as damages cannot recover actual appearance fees as costs, being limited only to the PHP 20.00 flat rate for attendance in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Furthermore, in superior courts, the taxation of costs is a condition precedent performed by the Clerk of Court upon five days' written notice, and a judge may only pass upon disputed items on appeal from the clerk's taxation.