GR L 26421; (October, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26421 October 29, 1966
KEATER HUANG, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ASSOCIATED REALTY DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants, Keater Huang et al., filed an “amended bill of costs” in Civil Case No. 24091 before the Court of First Instance of Manila, praying that costs be assessed against the defendant-appellee, Associated Realty Development Co., Inc., and that an alias writ of execution be issued. The Clerk of Court issued a “taxation of costs” but excluded the sum of P206.85, representing the premium paid on an attachment bond to the Associated Ins. & Surety Co., Inc. The plaintiffs appealed this exclusion to the Judge of Branch III, who sustained the Clerk of Court’s position in an order dated May 30, 1966. After their motion for reconsideration was denied, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. The defendant moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the order was not appealable.
ISSUE
Whether the amount paid as premium on an attachment bond is taxable as costs in an ordinary civil action (not an insolvency proceeding).
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as manifestly frivolous and devoid of merit. The Court held that the order of May 30, 1966 was appealable because it was a final order that definitively disallowed the premium as costs, ending the litigation on that matter. However, on the substantive issue, the Court ruled that under Section 10 of Rule 142 of the Revised Rules of Court, which enumerates the recoverable costs in Courts of First Instance, the premium on an attachment bond is not included. The Court distinguished the case from Hunter, Kerr & Co. vs. Murray, where such a premium was allowed, because that case involved an insolvency proceeding under Section 79 of Act No. 1956 (The Insolvency Law), which expressly authorizes the inclusion of such premiums as preferred debts. Since the present case is an ordinary civil action, the Insolvency Law does not apply, and recovery is strictly limited to the items listed in Rule 142. The appeal was dismissed with treble costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.