Alejo v. Sison
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originates from a civil action for a sum of money filed by Perfecto M. Alejo against Pablo S. Sison. During the proceedings, Alejo procured a writ of preliminary attachment, which was levied upon Sison's personal property. To secure the release of this attachment, the appellant, Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation, executed a bond for P1,000, guaranteeing payment of all costs and damages awarded to Sison if the attachment was found to be wrongful or without sufficient cause. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila, presided over by Judge Sixto de la Costa, dismissed Alejo's complaint on November 27, 1940, ordering costs against the plaintiff. Subsequently, on March 24, 1941, Sison's counsel submitted a bill of costs totaling P934.04, which included significant amounts for guarding chattels and storing an automobile. This bill was served on Alejo's attorney. A writ of execution was issued against Alejo to enforce the payment of these costs, but the sheriff reported Alejo's insolvency. Thereafter, Benedicto Javier, as assignee of Sison, moved for a writ of execution against the appellant surety company to satisfy the bond. The surety company opposed this motion, contesting the legality of certain cost items. Judge Jose R. Carlos overruled the opposition and granted the motion for execution against the surety. 3. The Petition: The appellant, Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation, appeals the order of the Court of First Instance, arguing that the trial court erred in not sustaining its objection to the inclusion of expenses for guarding chattels and storing the automobile in the bill of costs. The appellant contends these costs were improperly taxed. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, examined Section 8 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court regarding the taxation of costs and the procedure for objecting to or appealing such taxation. The Court noted that the plaintiff (whose obligations the surety assumed) failed to object to the bill of costs or appeal the clerk's taxation within a reasonable time, rendering the taxation final and unreviewable at the stage of execution against the surety.
Issue(s)
Whether the expenses for guarding chattels and storing an automobile, incurred in connection with a writ of attachment, are legally taxable as costs against the surety. Whether the objection to the taxation of costs, raised after the clerk's taxation had become final and in opposition to a motion for execution against the surety, constitutes a valid appeal from the clerk's taxation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court, holding that the appellant's objection was not a timely appeal from the clerk's taxation of costs. The Court ruled that the clerk's taxation of costs becomes final if not appealed to the court within a reasonable time, and the appellant failed to do so.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to include the expenses for guarding chattels and storing the automobile as part of the taxable costs. While Section 8 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court outlines the procedure for taxing costs, it does not explicitly enumerate what constitutes taxable costs. However, the context of the case, where these expenses were directly related to the maintenance of the attachment, suggests their potential inclusion. The crucial point, however, was not the nature of the costs themselves but the procedural failure to object to their taxation in a timely manner. The appellant's principal, the plaintiff, had notice of the bill of costs and the hearing for its taxation but failed to present any objection. This procedural lapse rendered the taxation final and binding. On Issue 2: The Court held that the appellant's objection, raised in opposition to a motion for execution against the surety, was not a valid or timely appeal from the clerk's taxation of costs. Section 8 of Rule 131 mandates that objections to the taxation of costs must be made in writing, specifying the items objected to, and that either party may appeal to the court from the clerk's taxation. The appellant did not file a formal appeal from the clerk's taxation. Instead, it raised its objections much later, in response to a motion for execution. The Court considered this objection untimely and improper, as the clerk's taxation had already become final due to the lack of a timely appeal. The Court fixed five days from the notice of the clerk's taxation as a reasonable period within which to present such an appeal, a period the appellant clearly missed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order to issue a writ of execution against the surety for the payment of costs, holding that the surety's objection to the inclusion of certain items in the bill of costs was not a timely appeal from the clerk's taxation. The Court emphasized that the clerk's taxation of costs becomes final if not appealed to the court within a reasonable time, and the appellant failed to meet this procedural requirement.