G.R. No. L-16452; October 31, 1963
GAUDIOSO M. TIONGCO, protestant-appellant, vs. CARMELO L. PORRAS, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

Gaudioso M. Tiongco and Carmelo L. Porras were candidates for Mayor of Davao City in the November 1955 elections. The Board of Canvassers proclaimed Porras as the winner. Tiongco subsequently filed an election protest, alleging fraud and irregularities in approximately 200 precincts. Porras filed an answer with a counter-protest covering 41 precincts. The court appointed commissioners to examine the ballots, with fees to be paid by the parties. After significant delays, primarily due to motions filed by Tiongco, the trial court dismissed the election protest and the counter-protest, with costs assessed against Tiongco.
Porras then filed a bill of costs, which included P1,230.00 for commissioner’s fees paid for the counter-protested precincts and P180.00 for the premium on the bond he posted for his counter-protest. The Clerk of Court approved this bill, and the trial court affirmed the approval. Tiongco appealed, specifically contesting the inclusion of these two items as taxable costs against him.

ISSUE

Whether the amounts paid by protestee-appellee Porras for commissioner’s fees related to his counter-protest and the premium on his counter-protest bond are legitimate expenses that can be taxed as costs against protestant-appellant Tiongco.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding Tiongco liable for these costs. The legal logic rests on the interpretation of Section 180 of the Revised Election Code, which requires a protestant to file a bond to answer for “all expense and costs incidental to the protest.” The Court reasoned that the commissioner’s fees for revising the ballots in the precincts protested by Tiongco were clearly a necessary and incidental expense of his protest, as his own allegations necessitated the opening of the ballot boxes.
Crucially, the Court extended this liability to cover the expenses for the counter-protest. It held that the counter-protest was a direct and defensive consequence of Tiongco’s initial filing. Had Tiongco not instituted the protest, Porras would not have filed a counter-protest. Therefore, the expenses incurred for the commissioners reviewing the counter-protested ballots, and the bond premium posted to secure that counter-protest, logically “arose from and may be deemed to be mere incident of appellant’s protest.” The dismissal of the case did not absolve Tiongco of the financial responsibility for costs that accrued as a direct result of his initiating the election contest.