BERNARDO TORRES, PROTESTANT AND APPELLANT, VS. MAMERTO S. RIBO, PROTESTEE AND APPELLEE.

Torres versus Ribo

The Case

This is an election protest turned accounting dispute. Bernardo Torres, the protestant, lost his protest against Mamerto Ribo, who was declared the elected Provincial Governor of Leyte. The trial court then sentenced the losing protestant to pay the costs and incidental expenses of the contest, and the protestee submitted a bill of expenses. The case matters because it fixes what may be taxed as expenses and costs in an election contest under the Revised Election Code, and it draws a firm line against charging the losing party for the winner's brief and for a transcript that was never necessary.

Procedural History

Bernardo Torres filed an election protest against Mamerto Ribo in the Court of First Instance of Leyte. On September 19, 1949, that court rendered a decision declaring the protestee elected to the office of Provincial Governor and sentencing the protestant to pay the costs and incidental expenses. The protestant appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. When the judgment became final, the protestee filed in the Court of First Instance of Leyte a bill of expenses and costs totalling 8,220 pesos and 50 centavos. The protestant opposed it and the protestee replied. On August 14, 1950, the court issued an order disallowing attorney's fees of 5,000 pesos and the expense for the protestee's brief of 200 pesos, and approving the rest of the bill in the total amount of 3,020 pesos and 50 centavos. The protestant's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he brought this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Facts

The protestant challenged the election of the protestee as Provincial Governor of Leyte and lost. The trial court declared the protestee elected and, as the losing party, the protestant was sentenced to pay the costs and incidental expenses of the protest.

After the judgment became final, the protestee filed a bill of expenses and costs in the trial court for various items totalling 8,220 pesos and 50 centavos. The trial court trimmed the bill, disallowing attorney's fees of 5,000 pesos and the expense for the protestee's brief of 200 pesos, and approved the remaining items in the total amount of 3,020 pesos and 50 centavos.

Among the items approved were commissioners' fees of 2,008 pesos, a transcript of stenographic notes of 375 pesos, and expenses for the protestee's brief in the counter-protest of 125 pesos. The protestant attacked these as not recoverable as costs, and also argued that because the protestee's majority had been reduced, each side should bear its own costs.

Issues

• Whether or not commissioners' fees, the transcript of stenographic notes, and the expense for the protestee's brief in the counter-protest are recoverable as expenses and costs against the losing party in an election contest.
• Whether or not the trial court should have ordered the parties to pay their respective costs because the protestee's majority was reduced, indicating the protest was not entirely without merit.

Applicable Provisions

Section 180 of the Revised Election Code, as the Court applies it, governs the assessment of expenses and costs in an election contest:

In case of a tie, the court shall order that the candidates who have tied shall draw lots, and the one who wins the draw shall be declared elected. The expenses and costs of the contest shall be paid by the losing party, unless the court, for special reasons, shall order that they be divided equitably between the parties.

This is the source of the rule that the losing party bears the expenses and costs, subject to an equitable division for special reasons.

Section 11 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which the Court cites as expressly barring an allowance for the brief:

No allowance shall be made to the prevailing party for the brief.

This directly disposes of the item for the protestee's brief in the counter-protest.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the commissioners' fees are proper expenses incident to the necessity of recanvassing the ballots, and are taxable under section 180 of the Revised Election Code. As costs in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the fees of a commissioner may be assessed against the defeated party, and by analogy the fees of commissioners in an election contest fall within the terms expenses and costs used in section 180 and are collectible against the losing party. But the items for the stenographic transcript and the brief in the counter-protest are out of order. Section 11 of Rule 131 expressly provides that no allowance shall be made to the prevailing party for the brief, and the protestee was not called upon to get any copy of the transcript, since it is part of the record of the court available to the parties.

On the second issue, the Court held the argument untenable. Under section 180 of the Revised Election Code, in relation to section 1 of Rule 131, the costs are generally assessed against the losing party, although for special reasons they may be divided equitably, and in that case the court is vested with discretion. Although the appellee's majority was reduced, the fact remains that he still won by a majority of 423 votes.

Doctrine

In an election contest, the losing party generally bears the expenses and costs, and the trial court may divide them equitably only for special reasons, a matter committed to its discretion. Commissioners' fees incurred in the recanvassing of ballots are taxable as expenses and costs against the losing party. The prevailing party may not be allowed the expense of his brief, and may not charge the losing party for a transcript of stenographic notes that forms part of the court's record and is available to the parties. A reduced but still winning majority does not, by itself, amount to a special reason for dividing costs.

Disposition

The protestee won the contest and the protestant was held liable for costs, but the appealed order was modified by disallowing the transcript of 375 pesos and the brief in the counter-protest of 125 pesos, without costs.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that the losing party pays the expenses and costs of an election contest, but never the winner's brief, and never a transcript that is already part of the record.

Examiners use this case to test the taxing of costs in election protests and the limits on what a prevailing protestee may charge the losing protestant.