OCEJO POMAR Y CIA., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RAMON CHAVEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Ocejo Pomar versus Chavez

The Case

This is a civil action brought by Ocejo Pomar and Company, a business firm, against Ramon Chavez and others, to recover a sum of money owed to it. The firm sued in the Court of First Instance of Manila and obtained a favorable judgment. The defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court, in a brief decision, affirmed the trial court's order and awarded costs against the appellants. The case matters less for any novel doctrine than for what it shows about the ordinary course of a money claim on appeal: the winning party below keeps its victory, and the losing appellants bear the costs of the appeal.

Procedural History

The plaintiff, Ocejo Pomar and Company, commenced the action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Ramon Chavez and others to collect an amount due. On the twenty-eighth of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the trial court issued its order in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed that order to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, having regularly acquired jurisdiction over the cause, which was submitted by both parties for decision, considered the record and rendered its judgment on the twenty-fifth of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, affirming the order appealed from.

Facts

Ocejo Pomar and Company, the plaintiff and appellee, held a claim for money against Ramon Chavez and others, the defendants and appellants. When the amount was not paid, the firm brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover it.

The trial court, after proceedings on the claim, issued an order dated the twenty-eighth of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, granting relief to the plaintiff. The defendants were dissatisfied and appealed the order to the Supreme Court.

The appeal was submitted by both parties for decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found no ground to disturb the trial court's order.

Issues

• Whether or not the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila in favor of the plaintiff should be affirmed on appeal.
• Whether or not the defendants-appellants should bear the costs of the appeal.

Applicable Provisions

The decision as reproduced does not quote or construe any specific statutory provision; it rests on the record and on the settled rule that the costs of an unsuccessful appeal are charged to the appellant.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated the twenty-eighth of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, from which the appeal was taken. The Court, having regularly acquired jurisdiction and having considered the cause upon the record, found the order of the trial court to be supported and left it undisturbed.

On the second issue, the Court held the defendants-appellants liable for the costs of the instance. The judgment decreed that the order appealed from be affirmed with costs of this instance against the defendants-appellants, and further ordered that the plaintiffs-appellees recover from the defendants-appellants the sum of forty pesos as costs.

Doctrine

An order of the Court of First Instance that is supported by the record will be affirmed on appeal, and the appellants who fail to overturn it bear the costs of the appeal. Where the Supreme Court affirms the judgment below with costs against the appellants, the appellee is entitled to recover the costs so awarded. The rule a Bar candidate should retain is simple: affirmance carries the consequence of costs against the losing appellant, and the appellee recovers the amount fixed by the Court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila with costs against the defendants-appellants, and ordered the plaintiffs-appellees to recover from the defendants-appellants the sum of forty pesos as costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an order of the trial court supported by the record is affirmed on appeal, with costs of the instance against the appellants. Examiners use this case to test the rule on costs in appealed money claims and the consequence of an unsuccessful appeal.