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 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, plaintiff Perfecto M. Alejo sued defendant Pablo S. Sison for a sum of money and procured a writ of preliminary attachment, which was levied upon the defendant’s personal properties. The appellant, Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation, executed a bond of P1,000 conditioned to pay costs and damages to the defendant if the attachment was finally adjudged wrongful or without sufficient cause. After trial, the court dismissed the complaint with costs against the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently filed a bill of costs totaling P934.04, the largest items being P813.00 for clerk’s fees related to guarding the defendant’s chattels and P91.60 for storage of the defendant’s automobile. A copy of this bill was served on the plaintiff’s attorney on March 24, 1941. The defendant then petitioned for a writ of execution, which was granted. The clerk of court set a hearing on 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. Thereafter, 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 aforementioned 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’s objection to the inclusion in the bill of costs of the expenses for guarding the defendant’s chattels and storing his automobile, which were incurred in connection with the maintenance of the attachment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. The Court held that under Section 8 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, costs in superior courts are taxed by the clerk upon written notice to the adverse party, who may object in writing and appeal to the court from the clerk’s taxation. In this case, the plaintiff (whose position the appellant surety occupies) received the reglementary notice and an additional notice for a hearing on taxation but failed to object or appeal from the clerk’s taxation. The Court ruled 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 and was no longer reviewable by the court, the appellant’s objection raised in opposition to the motion for execution was untimely and improper. The appealed order was affirmed, with no costs awarded in this instance as the appellee entered no appearance.