GR L 47525; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47525; April 8, 1941
FORTUNATO MAGLEO, protestante-apelante, vs. FELIPE VILLANUEVA, PASCUAL BANDONG y ELIAS M. CABAGON, protestados-apelado.
FACTS
In an election protest filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in 1938 between Fortunato Magleo (protestant) and Felipe Villanueva (protested), Villanueva was declared the elected Mayor of San Carlos. Magleo appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, but this reversal was later confirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 46986 on December 20, 1939, with a ruling “without pronouncement regarding costs.” Following this final Supreme Court decision, Magleo’s sureties, believing they were released from their bond obligation because the protest ended favorably for the protested (Villanueva) and without a costs award, filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for the cancellation of their bond and the return of their title certificates submitted to prove solvency. The trial court denied their petition. It ruled that the principal obligor (Magleo) must pay the costs and incidental expenses of his protest in the first instance and the Court of Appeals, and it authorized Villanueva to submit a statement of these costs and expenses. Magleo appealed this order, alleging the trial court erred in denying his sureties’ petition.
ISSUE
Whether the sureties of the election protestant are relieved from their bond obligation under Article 482 of the Administrative Code (as amended by Act No. 3387) for the payment of costs and incidental expenses, given that the Supreme Court’s final decision on the merits of the protest was rendered “without pronouncement regarding costs.”
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. The Court held that the mandatory provision of Article 482 requires a protestant to post a bond with two sureties, satisfactory to the court, to answer for the payment of all incidental expenses of the protest or appeal. The law imposes this obligation because costs and incidental expenses are necessarily incurred in any election protest. The Supreme Court’s phrase “without pronouncement regarding costs” in its decision in G.R. No. 46986 referred only to the costs related to that specific certiorari proceeding (the third instance) and did not constitute a release of the protestant (Magleo) from his statutory obligation to pay the incidental expenses of his protest filed in the lower courts. In effect, the Supreme Court’s final decision, which upheld the trial court’s original ruling in favor of Villanueva, implicitly confirmed the protestant’s liability for these costs and expenses. Therefore, the protestant (Magleo) is liable to pay the costs and incidental expenses of his protest, and his sureties remain bound by their bond obligation to answer for such payment. The appealed order was confirmed, with costs against the appellant (Magleo).