G.R. No. L-9672. December 21, 1956

On  December  20, 1951, petitioners filed  a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Masbate for the recovery of certain parcels of land and for an accounting of all the produce derived therefrom by respondents and praying that the latter  be  ordered to pay the sum of P100,000 as damages.  Respondents, in their answer, set up  certain special defenses and  a counterclaim.  In due course, both  parties  submitted their  evidence and,  during  the hearing, they stipulated that the expenses each party had incurred in the  prosecution of  the  case  amounted  to P10,000.  Thereafter, the  court  rendered judgment  dismissing the  complaint, but it added “with  costs as  stipulated  by the parties in the amount of P10,000  against plaintiffs.”

On June 17, 1955, petitioners took steps to appeal from this decision  by  filing the notice, of  appeal,  record on appeal  arid the appeal bond  of P60 as  required by  the rules, but respondents opposed the approval of the appeal bond alleging that the same was grossly insufficient  to guarantee the costs of P10,000 awarded to respondents in the decision.  This objection was sustained, the  court requiring petitioners to put up an appeal bond of P10,000. Petitioners filed  a motion for reconsideration, and when this was denied,  they interposed the  present petition for certiorari seeking (1) 1 set aside the order of the lower court declaring their appeal  bond of  P60 insufficient  and requiring them instead to file an appeal bond of P10,000, and  (2)  to order the lower court to approve  their appeal bond of P60 and  to give due course to their appeal.

The  question to be determined  is: Is  the  lower court justified  in requiring petitioners to put up an appeal bond of P10,000 instead of the reglementary bond of P60 considering the circumstances of this case?

The law governing the appeal bond to be  filed by the appellant in a case pending in a court of first instance is section 5, Rule 41, of the Rules of Court, which provides;

“SEC, 5.—Appeal  bond.—The appeal bond shall be  in the amount of sixty pesos (P60) unless the  court shall fix a different amount, or unless  a supersedeas bond is filed.  The appeal  bond shall be approved by the court and is conditioned for the payment of  costs which the appellate court may award against the appellant,”

It therefore appears that  the appeal bond shall be, as a rule, in the amount  of P60 unless the court shall fix a different amount.   And it has been held that “An appeal bond is sufficient when it is in substantial conformity with the provisions of the law, as long as  the legal effect is to insure to the appellee the payment of all costs required by law” (Oontreras vs.  Dinglasan, 79 Phil., 42,  as stated in Moran,  Comments on the Rules  of  Court, Vol. I, 1952 ed.,  p, 911).  On the  other hand,  the only costs  that a winning party may recover when the same  are awarded in a decision, are only those  fixed by  the  statute,  and in this jurisdiction, these costs are the ones prescribed in Rule 131 of our Rules of Court.  Thus, in said Rule 131 it is expressly provided that the prevailing party may  only recover the costs fixed therein “and no other” (sections 9, 10 and 11).  The only exception to the rule is when the court shall fix a different amount (section 5,  Rule 41).

“Costs ordinarily may be  imposed and recovered only in cases where there is statutory authority therefor, and only in the instances, to the extent, and in the manner provided for by the statute.  The power to make rules or orders for the imposition of costs exists only where it is given or ratified by statute.”  (20 C. J. S., p. 259.)

The question that now arises is:  Is there any special reason or justification for the lower court to fix an appeal bond in the amount of P10,000?

We find  none for, according to the record of this case, the complaint  was  dismissed and no special reason was stated therein for the adjudication of costs other than those specified in the law.  It is true that in the dispositive part of the decision the court, in dismissing the complaint, added “with costs as stipulated by the parties in the amount of P10,000 against plaintiffs”, but such finding is  erroneous as it does  not find support in the evidence.  The only stipulation  on the  matter is that the  parties and their counsel had spent  P10,000 in  connection  with  the case (Annex C)  and there is nothing therein  from which  it may be inferred that the parties have agreed  that such amount should be charged as costs  against the defeated party.   At most, this amount may be awarded as damages, but  not as costs.  There is therefore  no special  reason for requiring  petitioners to  put up  an  appeal bond in excess  of  the P60  fixed in  Section  5, Rule 41  of the Rules of Court.

Petition  is granted. The order of the  trial court requiring petitioners to put up an appeal bond of P10,000 is hereby set aside  and,  instead, said court is ordered to approve the appeal  bond of P60  filed by said petitioners and to give course to their appeal in accordance with law. No pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Concepcion, J. B. L., Reyes, Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.