G.R. No. L-12579; June 30, 1960
Pedro C. Montero, protestant-appellant, vs. Pedro V. Guerrero, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

In the 1955 elections for Lieutenant Governor of the subprovince of Aurora, Quezon, protestee-appellee Pedro V. Guerrero was proclaimed elected with 2,467 votes, while protestant-appellant Pedro C. Montero placed second with 2,232 votes. Montero filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, alleging fraud and irregularities, and posted a bond/cash deposit for costs. Guerrero filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages and a counter-protest, also posting a bond/cash deposit. During the revision of ballots, Guerrero withdrew his counter-protest, which the court granted after deducting related expenses from his deposit. Five days later, Montero withdrew his protest, and the court dismissed the case “with costs to the protestant.” Subsequently, Guerrero filed a “bill of expenses and costs” totaling P931.45, which included items for: (1) his transportation and subsistence expenses to hire counsel (P250.00); (2) refund of expenses for bringing ballot boxes and commissioners’ fees for precincts subject to his counter-protest (P163.45); (3) attorney’s fees (P500.00); (4) filing fee for his answer and counterclaim (P8.00); and (5) appearance fees for himself and counsel (P10.00). The trial court approved the entire bill. Montero appealed, contesting the approval of these items.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in approving the various items in protestee-appellee’s “bill of expenses and costs” as taxable costs or recoverable expenses under the Revised Election Code and the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s order. It disallowed the following items as not being taxable as costs or recoverable expenses under Section 180 of the Revised Election Code and Section 10, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court:
1. Transportation and subsistence expenses for employing counsel (P250.00) and Attorney’s fees (P500.00): These are not among the costs enumerated in Rule 131. Attorney’s fees are never considered costs, and such expenses incurred in preparing for trial are not “actual expenses connected with the trial” as contemplated by the statute.
2. Expenses for bringing ballot boxes and commissioners’ fees for the revision of ballots subject to the counter-protest (P163.45): Although proper expenses incidental to an election contest, they were incurred specifically for the counter-protest, which was withdrawn before the protest was dismissed. They would have been allowable only if incurred by reason of the main protest.
The Court allowed the following items as they are specifically taxable as costs under Section 10, Rule 131:
1. Filing fee for the answer and counterclaim (P8.00).
2. Appearance fees for protestee and his counsel (P10.00).
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that there was no “prevailing party” since both protests were withdrawn. The dismissal order explicitly imposed costs on the protestant, and that order was not appealed. Furthermore, the protest was withdrawn only after it became apparent that the examination of the remaining precincts would not change the election result, meaning the appellee effectively remained the winner.
Order modified accordingly. No costs.