GAUDIOSO M. TIONGCO, PROTESTANT AND APPELLANT, VS. CARMELO, L. PORRAS, PROTESTEE AND APPELLEE.

To facilitate the examination and recounting of ballots in the
protested precincts, the court appointes eight teams of commissioners,
each composed of three: one for the protestant, one for the protestee
and one for the court, with a compensation of P5.00 per ballot box for
each commissioner representing the protestant, and P10.00 for each of
the commissioners representing the court and the protestee. With
regards to the counter-protested ballot boxes, all the commissioner
received from protestee the amount P10.00 per precinct, or the total
sum of P1,230.00 for the 41 contested precincts.

After a delay of more than two years in the trial of he case due to
numerous motions for postponements files by the protestant, the court,
on April 15, 1958, issued the following order:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finding the opposition to the
motion for transfer well taken, hereby orders the dismissal of the
above-entitled case, as well as the counter-protest, with costs against
the protestant. Upon petition of counsel for the protestee, the request
of the protestee to file a separate civil suit for damages against the
protestant is hereby granted.”

On June 18, 1958, the protestee filed a bill of costs and expenses with the Clerk of Court, as follows:

1.	For the answer	P 8.00
2.	For the attendance of attorney	10.00
3.	For the attendance of 10 witnesses for 25 days of trial at the rate of P1.00 each day	250.00
4.	For the payment of premium of bond of P2,000 filed by the protestee at the rate of P60.00 a year for three years	180.00
5.	For commissioner’s fees paid by the protestee as per Order dated May 12, 1957	1,230.00
	Total	P1,678.00

Despite protestant’s opposition thereto, the Clerk of Court approved
the aforesaid bill. This was affirmed by the court in its order dated
February 13, 1959, the present being an appeal therefrom.

Appellant contents that there is no law or rule of court authorizing
the award as costs of the amount of P1,230.00 paid to the commissioners
and of the amount of P180.00 paid as premium on the bond posted by the
protestee in connection with his counter protest. This contention is
without merit. Section 180 of the Revised Election Code provides that
before a component court may take cognizance of an election protest,
the protestant shall file a bond, with two sufficient sureties and for
such amount as the Court may fix, to answer for the payment of all
expenses and costs incidental to the protest. Undoubtedly, the fees
paid to the commissioners who revised the ballots cast in the precincts
protested by appellant is an expense incidental to his protest. The
allegations made in his pleading made inevitable the opening of the
ballot boxes of the contested precincts and the revision of their
contents by the commissioners appointed for the purpose. Under the law
and the order of dismissal quoted heretofore, his liability therefore
appears clear.

With respect to the fees of the commissioners who revised the
ballots of the precincts covered by appellee’s counter-protest, we
likewise believe that appelant is liable.

The counter-protest was forced upon appellee by appellant’s protest.
Had the latter not filed any protest, there would have been no
counter-protest. The latter not filed any protest. Consequently, the
expenses incurred in connection therewith arouse from and may be deemed
to be mere incident of appellant’s protest.

Wherefore, finding the order appealed from to be in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.