G.R. No. L-16452 - Tiongco vs. Porras

Gaudioso M. Tiongco and Carmelo L. Porras were both candidates for the office of Mayor of Davao City during the November 1955 elections.
The Davao City Board of Canvassers declared Carmelo L. Porras as Mayor-Elect after tallying 15,462 votes against Tiongco’s 13,398 votes.

Tiongco, the protestant, filed an election protest against Porras, alleging widespread fraud, irregularities, terrorism, and other illegal acts in approximately 200 precincts.
Porras, the protestee, filed his answer denying the material allegations and initiated a counter-protest, raising issues concerning irregularities and anomalies in the ballot appraisal for 41 precincts.
Bonds were filed by both parties to cover expenses and costs:

The protestant submitted a bond of ₱10,000.00.
The protestee was required to file a bond of ₱2,000.00 related to his counter-protest.

To facilitate examination and recounting in the disputed precincts, the court appointed eight teams of commissioners.
Each team consisted of three commissioners:

For the contested precincts in the main protest, the protestant’s commissioner received ₱5.00 per ballot box.
The commissioners representing the court and the protestee received ₱10.00 per ballot box.
For the counter-protested precincts, each commissioner received ₱10.00 per precinct, amounting to a total of ₱1,230.00 for the 41 contested precincts.

After more than two years of delays due to numerous postponement motions filed by the protestant, the Court of First Instance of Davao issued an order on April 15, 1958.
The order dismissed both the election protest and the counter-protest with costs imposed on the protestant.
Additionally, upon a petition by counsel for the protestee, permission was granted for a separate civil suit for damages against the protestant.
On June 18, 1958, the protestee filed a bill of costs and expenses with the Clerk of Court, detailed as follows:

₱8.00 for the answer.
₱10.00 for the attendance of an attorney.
₱250.00 for the attendance of 10 witnesses over 25 days (at a rate of ₱1.00 per day per witness).
₱180.00 for the premium on the ₱2,000.00 bond (calculated at ₱60.00 per year for three years).
₱1,230.00 for the commissioners' fees as per the court’s order.
The total amount claimed was ₱1,678.00.

Despite opposition from the protestant, the Clerk of Court approved the bill, a decision later affirmed by the court in its order dated February 13, 1959.

Whether there is any legal basis for awarding the protestee the costs for the commissioners' fees amounting to ₱1,230.00.
Whether the ₱180.00 premium paid on the bond posted by the protestee as part of his counter-protest can be considered a valid part of the costs.

Whether the expenses incurred for the examination and recounting of ballots in the disputed precincts are attributable to the protestant’s action.
Whether the counter-protest expenses should be borne by the protestant since the counter-protest arose as a consequence of his filed protest.

Whether the requirement under Section 180 of the Revised Election Code, mandating the protestant to post a bond for all incidental expenses and costs, was properly observed and enforced.
The extent to which the incidental costs can be seen as a direct consequence of the legal procedures triggered by the protest.