Title
Damasen vs. Herdo
Case
G.R. No. L-49995
Decision Date
Apr 8, 1981
A civil damages suit followed Quimang's acquittal in a defamation case. The Supreme Court ruled attorney’s fees and excessive costs improperly included, limiting recoverable costs to statutory amounts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49995)

Procedural History

Damasen's pursuit of damages led to the filing of Civil Case No. 464 after Quimang's conviction. The trial court, however, dismissed Damasen's claims, ordering her to pay Quimang for actual damages and attorney's fees, with no appeal taken by either party. Subsequent to the dismissal, a motion for execution was granted in 1974 over Damasen's objection, which culminated in a final denial of her certiorari petition in 1975. In 1978, further motions and orders culminated in the assessment of costs by the court, which became the subject of the current petition.

Challenged Orders

In the order dated January 9, 1979, Judge Hernando modified the bill of costs submitted by Quimang, approving certain expenses while denying others. Damasen contested the taxation of attorney's fees and other charges, asserting that the judge overstepped jurisdictional boundaries and misapplied relevant laws regarding taxation of costs.

Legal Framework

The primary laws governing the case are found in Rule 142 of the Rules of Court, which regulates costs in civil actions, along with pertinent provisions of the Civil Code, specifically Article 2208. These legal provisions outline the conditions under which attorney’s fees may or may not be claimed as costs and provide a framework for determining recoverable judicial costs.

Judicial Analysis

In analyzing the claims, the court emphasized that costs should be strictly defined and allowed only in accordance with statutory provisions. Under Section 6 of Rule 142, attorney’s fees are not ordinarily taxable as costs by a prevailing party, unless specifically allowed by law or stipulation.

Misinterpretation of Legal Provisions

The court determined that Judge Hernando's approval of attorney’s fees as part of costs was erroneous because, although exemplary damages were awarded, the judgment did not explicitly provide for the taxa

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.