Case Digest (G.R. No. L-49995)
Facts:
Segundina M. Damasen v. The Hon. Harold M. Hernando, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch I and Cecilia Quimang, G.R. No. L-49995, April 08, 1981, Supreme Court First Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Segundina M. Damasen was the complainant in Criminal Case No. 170 for Grave Oral Defamation filed October 10, 1961, against private respondent Cecilia Quimang, who was convicted of Slight Oral Defamation by the Court of First Instance (CFI) on September 27, 1966. Damasen, not having been awarded damages in the criminal judgment, filed an independent civil action for damages (Civil Case No. 464) on November 3, 1966 before the same court.
Judge Juan Aquino, presiding in the Damages Suit, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on August 27, 1970 and, in the dispositive portion, ordered plaintiff Damasen to pay defendant Quimang actual damages of P1,000 and another P1,000 for moral and exemplary damages, plus costs. No appeal was taken from that decision. On August 8, 1974 Judge Aquino granted Quimang’s motion for execution; petitioner’s certiorari to the Court of Appeals was dismissed on October 29, 1974 (CA-G.R. No. SP-03530) and the Supreme Court denied review on March 7, 1975 (G.R. No. L-39836).
On November 21, 1978 respondent Judge Harold M. Hernando “noted and approved” ex parte a Bill of Costs submitted by Quimang listing P20 for the answer, P150 for attendance of defendant and counsel, P50 for transcript and P2,500 for attorney’s fees (total P2,720). Petitioner objected; in an Order dated January 9, 1979 respondent Judge allowed P20 for attendance, disallowed the transcript charge, and approved attorney’s fees of P2,500 “because exemplary damages were awarded” (citing Art. 2208 No. 1, New Civil Code). Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction alleging grave abuse of discretion and that the judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by taxing a...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Harold M. Hernando commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by taxing attorney’s fees and certain attendance costs as part of the bill of costs, contrary to Rule 142, secs. 6 and 10?
- Can Article 2208(1) of the Civil Code (authorizing recovery of attorney’s fees when exemplary damages are awarded) be applied to permit taxation of attorney’s fees as costs where the judgment did not expressly award such fees?
- Could the trial judge, by the challenged order, lawfully modify the final and executor...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)