G.R. No. L-20394; May 31, 1965
STEPHEN W. MARTIN, petitioner-appellee, vs. CELESTINO GOMEZ, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Celestino Gomez obtained a judgment against Paglinawan in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila (Civil Case No. 25918) and secured a writ of execution. The Sheriff of Baguio levied on an Oldsmobile car found in the possession of Stephen W. Martin in Baguio. The car was the subject of an unregistered chattel mortgage executed by Paglinawan in favor of Gomez. Martin filed a third-party claim. Gomez filed a P4,000 bond so the Sheriff could proceed with the auction sale. Martin then filed an action in the CFI of Baguio (Civil Case No. 669) to establish his ownership and secured a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the Sheriff from proceeding with the sale. The Sheriff retained custody of the car and stored it, incurring storage fees. The CFI of Baguio rendered judgment declaring Martin the lawful owner, having bought the car in good faith, and ordered Gomez to pay the storage fees as part of the costs. Gomez appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the CFI decision “with costs against the respondent-appellant Gomez.” The CA decision became final. Martin filed a motion for execution with a Bill of Costs, later amended to include storage fees from November 29, 1956, to December 11, 1959. The parties agreed to reduce the storage rates. The lower court fixed the storage fees at P1,840.50 as part of the costs taxable against Gomez. Gomez appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in including and taxing the storage fees of the automobile as part of the costs against the appellant.

RULING

The order of the lower court is affirmed. The storage fees were properly included as part of the costs taxable against appellant Gomez. The decision of the CFI of Baguio, affirmed by the CA, categorically stated that storage fees were to be charged as costs against Gomez. This part of the decision was not questioned in the first appeal to the CA and was thus affirmed. Furthermore, under the old Rules of Court (Rule 130, Section 7), the Sheriff is entitled to fees for executing process and serving an attachment, including a reasonable allowance for expenses necessarily incurred in caring for attached property. The Sheriff’s custody of the car, which necessitated storage, constituted a “service” for which he was entitled to fees, and such sheriff’s fees are included in the lawful fees taxable as costs. Gomez was responsible for the Sheriff taking and holding possession of the car during the pendency of the suit, and he must answer for the storage expenses. The lower court correctly fixed the amount at P1,840.50 based on the parties’ agreement on reduced rates.