G.R. No. L-26421 - Keater Huang vs. Associated Realty Development Co., Inc.

The plaintiffs, Keater Huang, et al., in civil case 24091 of Branch III of the Court of First Instance of Manila, filed an amended bill of costs on February 2, 1966, praying for an assessment and taxation of costs against the defendant, Associated Realty Development Co., Inc., and for the issuance of an alias writ of execution.
The amended bill specifically sought the inclusion of various fees and payments, including the premium on an attachment bond.

On March 23, 1966, the Clerk of Court issued a taxation of costs; however, the amount of P206.85 paid as the premium on the attachment bond to Associated Ins. & Surety Co., Inc. was not included.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Judge of Branch III, contending that the attachment bond premium should be allowed as part of the costs.

In an order dated May 30, 1966, the trial court sustained the Clerk’s exclusion of the premium, ruling that only specific fees (such as the docket fee amounting to P24.00, which was subsequently included to bring the total taxation to P243.00) were allowable as costs under the Rules of Court.
The premium on the attachment bond and the appeal bond was expressly disallowed as recoverable costs.

The defendant moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order was not appealable, citing sections of Rule 50 and Rule 56 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The central contention was that the order was not interlocutory and had effectively put a final end to the specific claim regarding the premium.

The Supreme Court held that the contested order was appealable since it definitively ruled on the non-allowance of the premium as costs, leaving no unresolved issues in the lower court that might affect the recovery of costs.
The appeal raised the issue of whether the premium on the attachment bond should be taxable as costs in civil case 24091.
The Court examined the relevant provisions of section 10 of Rule 142 (and its earlier formulation in Rule 131 and the Code of Civil Procedure), which enumerates the only items allowed as recoverable costs in the Court of First Instance.

The case of Hunter, Kerr & Co. vs. Murray, which allowed the inclusion of such premiums under insolvency proceedings, was distinguished on the basis that civil case 24091 was not an insolvency proceeding.
Additional references such as De la Cruz vs. Blanco and Paner vs. Yatco were cited to highlight previous holdings where frivolous appeals, lacking a justiciable issue, were summarily dismissed.
The Court also took note of the nature of the petition for mandamus that was intertwined with the appeal and analyzed whether it would ultimately result in any substantive modification of the trial court’s ruling.

Whether the order denying the inclusion of the premium on the attachment bond as part of the costs is appealable, given that it was rendered on a complete and final determination regarding the costs assessment.

Whether the premium paid on the attachment bond should be classified as a recoverable cost under the provisions of section 10 of Rule 142 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The issue also indirectly involved the proper interpretation of permissible costs as strictly enumerated, and whether any “catch-all” inclusion could be justified under the existing rules.

Whether precedents that allowed bond premiums in insolvency cases (e.g., Hunter, Kerr & Co. vs. Murray) could be applied analogously to a non-insolvency civil action such as the one at bar.