G.R. No. L-10243; August 26, 1915

FACTS:
The case originated from an election contest for the position of Governor of the Province of Capiz between Ramon Hontiveros and Jose Altavas. After the canvass of returns, Jose Altavas was initially declared elected. Hontiveros filed an election protest and, pursuant to Section 27 of Act No. 1582, posted a bond to guarantee payment of all costs that might be incurred due to his protest. The Court of First Instance, upon recount, later declared Hontiveros the winner. Altavas appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court’s dispositive portion revoked the lower court’s decision “without costs to either party in this court.” The case was remanded to the lower court. Subsequently, Hontiveros filed a motion in the Court of First Instance seeking a modification of the judgment for costs that had been rendered against him by that court in the first instance. The lower court denied his motion, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff-appellant, Ramon Hontiveros, is obligated to pay the costs of the election protest incurred in the Court of First Instance, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision which did not award costs on appeal.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the motion to modify the judgment for costs. The Court held that the plaintiff-appellant is obligated to pay the costs incurred in the lower court by reason of his election protest. The Supreme Court’s decision on appeal, which stated “without costs to either party in this court,” pertained only to the costs of the appeal proceedings in the Supreme Court. It did not modify or reverse the lower court’s original judgment against Hontiveros for costs. Reading Section 27 of Act No. 1582 (The Election Law) in relation to Section 2 of Act No. 2170, the Court found that Hontiveros, by filing the protest and posting the required bond, became liable for the payment of all costs resulting from his protest. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court refusing to modify the cost judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.