GR L 22821; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22821; August 15, 1967
ASUNCION CONUI-OMEGA, protestant-appellee, vs. CESAR SAMSON, protestee-appellant.
FACTS
This is a direct appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in an election case. By final decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-21910, protestant-appellee Asuncion Conui-Omega was declared to have obtained a plurality of ten (10) votes over appellant protestee Cesar Samson, with costs imposed against Samson. Upon remand for execution, appellee submitted a bill of costs for P1,236.10. The Clerk of Court taxed only P346.10 against appellant. Appellee protested the taxation for its failure to include P400.00 for a transcript of stenographic notes and P300.00 for the printing of her brief, and appealed to the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance sustained the appeal and ordered appellant to pay the additional items. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The issue is limited to whether appellee is entitled to recover from the losing party the cost of a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes and the cost of printing her brief on appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled for appellant, reversing the orders of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that Section 11(d) of Rule 142 of the Revised Rules of Court (and its counterpart in the old rules) specifically provides that no allowance shall be made to the prevailing party in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals for the brief or written or printed arguments of his attorney, aside from a fixed nominal amount. These rules apply suppletorily to election cases under Rule 143, as the Election Code is silent on the point. Therefore, the claimed items for the transcript and printed brief are disallowed. The Court distinguished the case from Tiongco vs. Porras, where commissioners’ fees were allowed, as those are expressly recoverable under the Rules. Furthermore, the payment for a copy of the transcript was not indispensable as the original in the records could have been utilized, and the cost of the printed brief redounded solely to appellee’s benefit. The original taxation of costs by the Clerk of Court was reinstated.