G.R. No. 48489 ; January 30, 1943
PERFECTO M. ALEJO, plaintiff, vs. PABLO S. SISON, defendant. BENEDICTO JAVIER, assignee of PABLO S. SISON, appellee; VISAYAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION, bondsman-appellant.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 53926 (Perfecto M. Alejo vs. Pablo S. Sison), the plaintiff obtained a writ of preliminary attachment, which was levied on the defendant’s personal properties. The appellant, Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation, executed a P1,000 bond guaranteeing payment of costs and damages to the defendant if the attachment was later adjudged wrongful. The trial court dismissed the complaint with costs against the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently filed a bill of costs totaling P934.04, with the largest items being clerk’s fees for guarding the defendant’s chattels (P813.00) and for storage of his automobile (P91.60). A copy of this bill was served on the plaintiff’s attorney. The defendant then petitioned for a writ of execution based on the judgment and the bill of costs, which the court granted. The clerk of court set a hearing for the taxation of costs, but the plaintiff did not object to any items or appeal the clerk’s taxation. A writ of execution against the plaintiff was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. The appellee, Benedicto Javier (as assignee of the defendant), moved for a writ of execution against the appellant surety. The appellant opposed, contesting the legality of the two major cost items. The trial court overruled the opposition and granted the motion for execution against the surety.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant surety’s objection to the inclusion of expenses for guarding chattels and storing an automobile in the bill of costs, considering the plaintiff’s failure to previously object to the clerk’s taxation.

RULING

The trial court’s order is affirmed. The appellant’s objection, raised only in opposition to the motion for execution against the surety, was untimely and improper. Under Section 8, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, in superior courts, costs are taxed by the clerk upon five days’ written notice to the adverse party, who must make objections in writing. Either party may appeal the clerk’s taxation to the court. Here, the plaintiff (whose position the appellant surety occupies) received the reglementary notice and an additional hearing notice from the clerk but did not object to the items or appeal the taxation. The Court held that such an appeal must be made expressly, in due form, and within a reasonable time, which it fixed at five days from notice of the clerk’s taxation. Since the clerk’s taxation had become final due to the plaintiff’s inaction, it was no longer reviewable by the court when the appellant raised its objection later. Therefore, the writ of execution against the surety bond was properly issued.