G.R. No. L-5686 April 17, 1953
ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, VICTORIANA DEL ROSARIO, MARCELINA DEL ROSARIO, FERNANDO BERNARDO, MARIANO BERNARDO, and MANUEL BERNARDO, petitioners, vs. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, JULIAN B. MENDOZA, as Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga, and CARLOS SANDICO, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for mandamus. The case originated from a recovery of real estate case (Civil Case No. 6178) in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, where the petitioners were plaintiffs and respondent Carlos Sandico was a defendant. The Court of Appeals, in a July 8, 1944 decision, required the plaintiffs to pay P3,944 to Sandico within 90 days from the finality of the decision, after which possession of the land would be surrendered to them. Upon the decision becoming final and Sandico refusing to accept the tendered payment, the plaintiffs deposited the money with the clerk of court and moved for delivery of possession, which was granted on October 5, 1945. Sandico appealed to the Supreme Court. On December 29, 1949, the Supreme Court rendered a confirmatory decision adding “with costs against the appellees” (the petitioners herein). On May 26, 1951, Sandico filed an amended bill of costs for P394, which the petitioners opposed. The clerk of court issued a writ of execution for these costs on October 25, 1951, reiterated on November 21, 1951. On December 20, 1951, the clerk of court made the taxation of costs. The petitioners appealed this taxation to the court the following day. On January 16, 1952, the court (respondent Judge) sustained the taxation. The petitioners filed the necessary pleadings to perfect an appeal from this order, but on March 4, 1952, their appeal was disapproved, prompting this mandamus petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge erred in disapproving the appeal from his order approving the taxation of costs made by the clerk of court, considering that the appellants had filed the required pleadings for perfecting the appeal in due time.

RULING

The petition is granted. The Supreme Court held that the order of the respondent Judge sustaining the taxation of costs is final in character, not merely interlocutory, and is therefore appealable. The Court cited Section 8, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which allows either party to appeal to the court from the clerk’s taxation of costs, and noted that such appeals have been entertained before (citing Tanega vs. Nazareno, 73 Phil., 354). Since the petitioners complied with the rule by appealing the clerk’s taxation to the court and, upon the court’s approval, took steps to perfect an appeal from that order, the respondent Judge’s disapproval of the appeal was erroneous. The Court declined to rule on the petitioners’ claim that the writ of execution was prematurely issued, stating that matter should be addressed when the case is decided on its merits. Costs were awarded against respondent Carlos Sandico.