G.R. No. L-60687 - AUGUST 1982 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-60687August 31, 1982 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Hon. Minerva C. Genovea, et al. G.R. No. L-54068August 30, 1982 St. Luke's Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of Labor, The National Labor Relations Commission, Arbiter Ceferina Diosana & Editha B. Bachoco G.R. No. L-30697August 2, 1982 Gilberto M. Duavit vs. Herminio Mariano A.M. No. 2247-MJAugust 19, 1982 Pedro G. Valentin vs. Mariano P. Gonzales A.M. No. 2385-MJAugust 19, 1982 Jonathan A. Luzuriaga vs. Jesus B. Bromo A.M. No. 921-MJAugust 19, 1982 Antonio C. Lucero vs. Carlos Salazar A.M. No. P-1518August 19, 1982 Erotido O. Domingo vs. Romeo R. Quimson G.R. No. L-34081August 19, 1982 PhilippineSugar Institute vs. Asso. of Philsugin Employees G.R. No. L-35440August 19, 1982 Rufino Geralde vs. Andres Y. Sabido G.R. No. L-38352August 19, 1982 Adela J. Caños vs. E.L. Peralta G.R. No. L-46499August 19, 1982 Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. L-48057August 19, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Victorio Venezuela G.R. No. L-50402August 19, 1982 PhilippineCommercial and Industrial Bank vs. Nat'l. Mines & Allied Workers Union G.R. No. L-51194August 19, 1982 Central Azucarera De La Carlota, Inc. vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. L-51494August 19, 1982 Judric Canning Corp. vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. L-52720August 19, 1982 United Cmc Textile Workers Union vs. Jacobo C. Clave G.R. No. L-58287August 19, 1982 Eduardo Villanueva vs. Jlorenzo Mosqueda G.R. No. L-60067August 19, 1982 San Miguel Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Com. G.R. No. L-26940August 21, 1982 Paulina Santos vs. Gregoria Aranzanso G.R. No. L-27130August 21, 1982 Paulina Santos De Parreño vs. Julio Villamor G.R. No. L-35705August 21, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo M. Umali G.R. No. L-36222August 21, 1982 August O. Bernarte vs. Secretary of National Defense G.R. No. L-39007August 21, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Camilo Ramirez G.R. No. L-40621August 21, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Aquilino Padunan G.R. No. L-56962August 21, 1982 Republic of the Philippines vs. Andres B. Plan G.R. No. L-58805August 21, 1982 Romulo Bolaños vs. Rafael Dela Cruz G.R. No. L-59493August 21, 1982 Manuel San Andres vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-59823August 21, 1982 Getz Corp. Phils. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-38753August 25, 1982 Rafael S. Mercado vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal G.R. No. L-44031August 26, 1982 Sonia Villones vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-47099August 26, 1982 Ignacio Delos Angeles vs. Gov't. Service Insurance System G.R. No. L-59582August 26, 1982 Jesus M. Paman vs. Rodrigo Diaz A.M. No. 78-MJAugust 30, 1982 Buenaventura B. Martinez vs. Teodoro O. Pahimulin A.M. No. P-1722August 30, 1982 Benigno Caballero vs. Walter Villanueva G.R. No. L-25933August 30, 1982 PhilippineLong Distance Tel. Co. vs. Free Telephone Workers Union G.R. No. L-27657August 30, 1992 Juliana Reyes vs. Gregoria Aranzanso G.R. No. L-29268August 30, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Cesario C. Golez G.R. No. L-33515August 30, 1982 J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Raymundo Familara G.R. No. L-37686August 30, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin L. Arcenal G.R. No. L-39298August 30, 1982 Sulpicio G. Paredes vs. Commission on Audit G.R. No. L-41700August 30, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Ricarte Sibayan G.R. No. L-42447August 30, 1982 Pioneer Insurance and Surety Co. vs. Serafin E. Camilon G.R. No. L-42660August 30, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio Olmedillo G.R. No. L-43427August 30, 1982 Felipe N. Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-45472August 30, 1982 Heirs of Saturnina Akut vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-46762August 30, 1982 PhilippineAirlines Supervisors' Asso. vs. Amado Gat Inciong G.R. No. L-48975August 30, 1982 Rafael B. Magpantay vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-54094August 30, 1982 Alabang Dev't. Corp. vs. Manuel E. Valenzuela G.R. No. L-54760August 30, 1982 Micaela C. Aggabao vs. Leticia U. Gamboa G.R. No. L-55801August 30, 1982 Leonardo Magat vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-56973August 30, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Sabeniano Lobetania G.R. No. L-56995August 30, 1982 Dr. Raymundo R. Librodo vs. Hon. Jose L. Coscolluela, Jr G.R. No. L-59548August 30, 1982 Davao Light & Power Co. Inc. vs. Pacita Canizares-Nye G.R. No. L-59821August 30, 1982 Rowena F. Corona vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-60342August 30, 1982 Francisco S. Banaad vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-28237August 31, 1982 Bay View Hotel., Inc. vs. Ker & Co., Ltd. G.R. No. L-29971August 31, 1982 Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-32437August 31, 1982 Salandang Pangadil vs. Court of First Instance of Cotabato G.R. No. L-36759August 31, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Necesio Imbo G.R. No. L-37935August 31, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Clemente Ganado G.R. No. L-38687August 31, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Filomeno Hisugan G.R. No. L-39777August 31, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Felix Atienza G.R. No. L-44707August 31, 1982 Hickok Manufacturing, Inc, vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-59887August 31, 1982 China Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-60800August 31, 1982 Jaime Pelejo vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al. G.R. No. L-60987August 31, 1982 Samuel Bautista vs. Nat'l. Telecommunications Com. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Hon. Minerva C. Genovea, et al. St. Luke's Hospital, Inc. vs. Minister of Labor, The National Labor Relations Commission, Arbiter Ceferina Diosana & Editha B. Bachoco Gilberto M. Duavit vs. Herminio Mariano Pedro G. Valentin vs. Mariano P. Gonzales Jonathan A. Luzuriaga vs. Jesus B. Bromo Antonio C. Lucero vs. Carlos Salazar Erotido O. Domingo vs. Romeo R. Quimson PhilippineSugar Institute vs. Asso. of Philsugin Employees Rufino Geralde vs. Andres Y. Sabido Adela J. Caños vs. E.L. Peralta Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services vs. Amado G. Inciong People of the Philippines vs. Victorio Venezuela PhilippineCommercial and Industrial Bank vs. Nat'l. Mines & Allied Workers Union Central Azucarera De La Carlota, Inc. vs. Amado G. Inciong Judric Canning Corp. vs. Amado G. Inciong United Cmc Textile Workers Union vs. Jacobo C. Clave Eduardo Villanueva vs. Jlorenzo Mosqueda San Miguel Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Com. Paulina Santos vs. Gregoria Aranzanso Paulina Santos De Parreño vs. Julio Villamor People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo M. Umali August O. Bernarte vs. Secretary of National Defense People of the Philippines vs. Camilo Ramirez People of the Philippines vs. Aquilino Padunan Republic of the Philippines vs. Andres B. Plan Romulo Bolaños vs. Rafael Dela Cruz Manuel San Andres vs. Court of Appeals Getz Corp. Phils. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Rafael S. Mercado vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal Sonia Villones vs. Employees' Compensation Commission Ignacio Delos Angeles vs. Gov't. Service Insurance System Jesus M. Paman vs. Rodrigo Diaz Buenaventura B. Martinez vs. Teodoro O. Pahimulin Benigno Caballero vs. Walter Villanueva PhilippineLong Distance Tel. Co. vs. Free Telephone Workers Union Juliana Reyes vs. Gregoria Aranzanso People of the Philippines vs. Cesario C. Golez J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Raymundo Familara People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin L. Arcenal Sulpicio G. Paredes vs. Commission on Audit People of the Philippines vs. Ricarte Sibayan Pioneer Insurance and Surety Co. vs. Serafin E. Camilon People of the Philippines vs. Arsenio Olmedillo Felipe N. Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals Heirs of Saturnina Akut vs. Court of Appeals PhilippineAirlines Supervisors' Asso. vs. Amado Gat Inciong Rafael B. Magpantay vs. Court of Appeals Alabang Dev't. Corp. vs. Manuel E. Valenzuela Micaela C. Aggabao vs. Leticia U. Gamboa Leonardo Magat vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Sabeniano Lobetania Dr. Raymundo R. Librodo vs. Hon. Jose L. Coscolluela, Jr Davao Light & Power Co. Inc. vs. Pacita Canizares-Nye Rowena F. Corona vs. Court of Appeals Francisco S. Banaad vs. Court of Appeals Bay View Hotel., Inc. vs. Ker & Co., Ltd. Esso Standard Eastern, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Salandang Pangadil vs. Court of First Instance of Cotabato People of the Philippines vs. Necesio Imbo People of the Philippines vs. Clemente Ganado People of the Philippines vs. Filomeno Hisugan People of the Philippines vs. Felix Atienza Hickok Manufacturing, Inc, vs. Court of Appeals China Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals Jaime Pelejo vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al. Samuel Bautista vs. Nat'l. Telecommunications Com.

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-60687 August 31, 1982

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY,petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE MINERVA C. GENOVEA, in her capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XIII, Pasig, ROMULO VICTORIA, in his capacity as Sheriff of Branch XIII, and BETTER BUILDING, INC.,respondents.

Perez, Olan, Lazo, Trinidad Palabrica & Associates for petitioner.

Doroja Law Office for respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA,J.:

The instant Petition for "Certiorari, mandamus and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction" seeks to set aside the Order, dated June 7, 1982, of respondent Judge in the case entitled "Better Buildings, Inc. vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company" (Civil Case No. 39943), authorizing execution pending appeal of the judgment requiring payment by petitioner-defendant of the sum of P311,328.78 to respondent-plaintiff, Better Buildings, Inc.

The Better Buildings, Inc. (BBI, for brevity) had been supplying the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) janitorial maintenance and sanitation services at the latter's different offices for more than ten years already.

Sometime in 1977, BBI requested PLDT for readjustment of its monthly billings due to the increase in prices of cleaning materials and the payment of more benefits to its employees as mandated by the Labor Code and other Presidential Decrees. On September 18, 1978, PLDT agreed to the readjustment but in the reduced amount of P550.00 monthly per janitor instead of the proposed price of P595.00. According to BBI, based on PLDT's counter offer, a total of P315,906.03 became due and payable to BBI, but that PLDT paid only P103,281,25 leaving unpaid the sum of P212,624.78.

On February 4, 1981, BBI filed a complaint against PLDT before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XIII (CC G.R. No. 39943), presided by respondent Judge, for the recovery of said balance plus the amounts of P29,038.25 and P7,400.00 representing the balance of regular billings and special jobs, respectively, and attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of its claim.

In its Answer, PLDT denied any liabilities contending mainly that BBI is an independent contractor, the true and actual employer of its employees and is, therefore, liable and responsible for the payment of all benefits and compensation due them under existing laws; that BBI can not hold PLDT liable for any amount in excess of the agreed payment of P550.00 per month; and that the invoices submitted by BBI to substantiate its claims have been either paid already, exaggerated, or of doubtful validity.

At the pre-trial on October 15, 1981, respondent Judge allowed BBI to mark its documentary evidence, terminated the pre-trial, and set the case for trial on the merits. The Order read in part:1äwphï1.ñët

On January 6, 1982, respondent Judge admitted all of BBI's documentary evidence over PLDT's objections and set the case for reception of PLDT's evidence.

After several postponements, when the case was again set for reception of PLDT's evidence on March 18, 1982, PLDT's counsel moved for postponement on the ground of sudden illness of its witness. Objected to by the BBI attorney, postponement was denied and PLDT was "considered to have waived its right to present its evidence and the case is deemed submitted for decision."

On April 27, 1982, a Decision was rendered awarding to BBI all the amounts it had prayed for, thus:1äwphï1.ñët

On May 27, 1982, twenty-three (23) days after receipt of the Decision, PLDT filed a Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration contending that PLDT had never admitted its liability during the pre-trial, that BBI's documentary evidence consisting of requests for adjustments were not shown to have been approved by it (PLDT), and that PLDT was deprived of its day in Court as it was not permitted to adduce evidence in its defense.

On a date that does not appear of record, BBI filed a "Motion for Immediate Execution and Opposition to Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration".

On June 7, 1982, respondent Judge issued the assailed Order denying reconsideration and/or new trial on the ground that she found no valid reason to alter her Decision, and that , after the lapse of seven (7) months, it (PLDT) can not now be allowed to raise in issue the correctness or accurateness of the contents of the pre-trial order."

In the same Order of June 7, 1982, respondent Judge granted BBI's "Motion for Immediate Execution" on the ground that there was a "clear intention" on the part of PLDT" to delay the proceedings in this case" adding that:1äwphï1.ñët

The aforestated Order was followed the day after, or on June 8, 1982, with the corresponding Writ of Execution, which is also challenged herein.

On June 9, 1982, PLDT filed the instant Petition praying for a judgment declaring the Order dated June 7, 1982, authorizing execution, as well as the Writ itself under date of June 8, 1982, null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion as there exist no good and special reasons to warrant the same.

On June 14,1982, this Court required BBI to Comment, and issued a temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondents from enforcing the Writ of Execution dated June 8,1982.

Subsequent pleadings submitted by the parties show that on June 8, 1982, PLDT had filed a Notice of Appeal and a cash bond. This was followed on June 14, 1982 with a Record on Appeal.2

Further, on June 15, 1982, BBI filed a "Motion for the Approval of the Bill of Costs",3attaching thereto the following:1äwphï1.ñët

"BILL OF COST

The Bill of Costs was approved in an Order issued by respondent Judge on the same day directing four specified banks1äwphï1.ñët

Required to comment on the instant Petition, BBI maintains that after three pre-trial conferences, respondent Judge had stripped the case of "sham and futile" issues until the "defense of payment remained as the sole triable question of fact to be resolved"; that PLDT was given ample opportunity to prove its defense of payment but failed to avail itself of the chance and instead sought unjustified postponement; that PLDT's Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial waspro formaand did not interrupt the period of appeal; that "delay for the tactic of buying time by the PLDT was a valid compelling reason to warrant the execution pending appeal"; that since PLDT's defense of payment was not and could not be proven, any appeal interposed by it was frivolous and dilatory.

BBI also justified its Bill of Costs and the approval thereof by respondent Judge averring that it merely reproduced the award adjudged in the Decision, and, as to the rate of interest, it explained:1äwphï1.ñët

1. PLDT underscores the absence of "good reasons" as a basis for the issuance of execution pending appeal. We agree. The existence of good reasons is what confers discretionary power on a Court of First Instance to issue a writ of execution pending appeal.7The "delay" cited by respondent Judge as the rationale behind the issuance of execution pending appeal is not per se a good and valid reason. Neither is the apprehension that the appeal of a defeated party is merely dilatory sufficient to justify execution pending appeal.1äwphï1.ñët

Moreover, the impression of respondent Judge that "the only issue in this case is payment, which is raised as a defense by the defendant ",9is based on a misappreciation of PLDT's position. As early as its Answer, PLDT denied any liability. At the pre-trial, its counsel also had occasion to clarify its stand:1äwphï1.ñët

Faced with those contentions, it behooved respondent Judge to have reopened the case for the reception of PLDT's evidence. Even granting that PLDT had sought several postponements, the requirements of substantial justice mandate that PLDT should have been given its day in Court.ït¢@lFºThe grant of a reasonable continuance would have been sounder judicial discretion to ferret out the truth.

It thus becomes obvious that the urgency of the execution was not clearly patent nor the right of BBI as the prevailing to the relief of execution pending appeal undeniable.

2. The approval by respondent Judge of BBI's Bill of Costsex-partewas likewise in grave abuse of discretion.ℒαwρhi৷Firstly, the judgment had not yet become final because of PLDT's appeal.

Secondly, the items listed depart from the basic meaning of judicial costs, that is the expenses of litigation as between litigants,12or the statutory allowance to a party to an action for his expenses incurred in the action, and having reference only to the parties and the amounts paid by them.13Section 10, Rule 142 of the Rules regulates the costs that may be recovered by a prevailing party in Courts of First Instance.14The monetary sums awarded in a judgment are never taxed as costs. The proper mode for securing satisfaction therefore is through execution pursuant to the Rules.

Thirdly, a Bill of Costs, in the first instance, is passed upon by the Clerk of Court although either party may appeal to the Court from the Clerk's taxation. In acting on the Bill of Costs initially and approving it immediately, respondent Judge contravened Section 8, Rule 142 of the Rules of Court.15Moreover, PLDT claims that it was never sent the required notice.

In respect of attorney's fees as costs, Sec. 6 of the same Rule 142 likewise explicitly provides:1äwphï1.ñët

Clearly, attorney's fees are not normally taxable as costs. Those fees are not included within the expenses and costs of any trial or proceeding.16Nor is this case an instance where the rules of civil law allow attorney's fees as costs.

BBI likewise used 21% as the basis for the computation of interest, which rate was immediately approved by respondent Judge. This is patent error. The Decision in this case stipulated "legal rate of interest",supra,BBI's ratiocination that it was the rate of interest paid by it when it borrowed money from the banks with which to pay its janitors because of PLDT's refusal to make such payment is absolutely untenable. That factor is completely immaterial and irrelevant in the computation of the legal rate of interest awarded in a judgment.

WHEREFORE,granting the Writs prayed for, the Order, dated June 7, 1982, and the Writ of Execution, dated June 8, 1982, having been issued by respondent Judge with grave abuse of discretion, are hereby NULLIFIED; 2) granting other "just and equitable reliefs" prayed for, the Decision rendered by respondent Judge under date of April 27, 1982 is also SET ASIDE and respondent Judge is hereby directed to reopen Civil Case No. 39943 for the reception of the evidence of petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, and thereafter to render judgment as the facts and evidence may warrant; 3) petitioner, as defendant in that case, shall present its evidence with the least possible delay, limiting requests for postponement to the minimum; and 4) the temporary Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby made permanent.

Costs against private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët

Makasiar, J., is on leave.

Footnotes