Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26421)
Procedural Background
On February 2, 1966, the plaintiffs submitted an "amended bill of costs" requesting that the costs be assessed against the defendant and for an alias writ of execution to satisfy the said costs. The Clerk of the Court issued a "taxation of costs" on March 23, 1966, but excluded a specific sum of P206.85 for the premium on an attachment bond, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal to the judge of Branch III of the Court. The judge denied inclusion of this premium in his order dated May 30, 1966, leading to an appeal by the plaintiffs after a motion for reconsideration was denied.
Appeal and Arguments
The defendant’s counsel filed a motion on September 20, 1966, to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the order in question was not appealable, referencing specific sections of the Revised Rules of Court. The court observed that the order appealed from definitively ruled on certain allowable costs, indicating that the litigation had effectively concluded with regard to that issue.
Court's Ruling on Appealability
The court found the appeal valid, stating that the order was not interlocutory, as it explicitly ruled out the premium on the attachment bond from being considered a recoverable cost. The court reiterated that the order put an end to litigation on that specific matter, allowing for appeal as it concluded the discussion regarding those costs.
Taxability of Attachment Bond Premium
The main legal issue under consideration was whether the premium paid for the attachment bond could be deemed taxable as costs. The court ruled against this contention, citing the specific provisions of section 10 of Rule 142 of the Revised Rules of Court, which delineates the allowable recoverable costs. The costs are explicitly enumerated and do not include premiums paid for bonds as costs recoverable by the winning party.
Relevant Comparisons and Precedents
The court noted the irrelevance of the case Hunter, Kerr & Co. vs. Murray that the appellants relied on, stating that the costs recoverable under the insolvency proceedings cited were not applicable to the current case. The court emphasized the necessity for a clear legal framework for costs recovery, indicating that no provisions within the applicable rules allowed for the recovery of the bond premium in ordinary civil proceedings.
Con
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-26421)
Background of the Case
- The plaintiffs, Keater Huang and others, filed an "amended bill of costs" on February 2, 1966, in civil case 24091 before Branch III of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- They sought to have costs assessed and taxed against the defendant, Associated Realty Development Co., Inc., and requested an alias writ of execution for satisfaction of these costs.
- On March 23, 1966, the Clerk of Court issued a "taxation of costs" that did not include a sum of P206.85, which was the premium on an attachment bond paid to Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the judge of Branch III, arguing that this sum should have been included as part of the taxable costs.
Court Proceedings and Orders
- The judge, in an order dated May 30, 1966, upheld the Clerk of Court’s position that the premium on the attachment bond was not allowable as a cost.
- Following the denial of their motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
- The defendant’s counsel moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that the order was not appealable under section 1-(i) of Rule 50 and section 1 of Rule 56 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Appealability of the Order
- The S