Go vs. Saint Jude Catholic School Manila, Inc.

Reasonable attorney's fees awarded as actual or compensatory damages under Article 2208 of the Civil Code cannot simultaneously be taxed as costs against the adverse party; the only costs recoverable by the prevailing party are those fixed in Rule 142, Sections 9 to 11 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners, having already received PHP 100,000.00 as attorney's fees as damages, were thus limited for counsel attendance to the PHP 20.00 flat rate provided in Section 10(b), with all other recoverable items confined to the exclusive enumeration in Section 10.

Atty. Melita Go and Wayne Go were plaintiffs in a Complaint for damages docketed as Civil Case No. Q-11-69265 before Branch 97, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, against Saint Jude Catholic School Manila, Inc., Fr. Marcelino Nicasio, SVD, Fatima de Guzman, and spouses Eugene Lee and Joanne Lee. On October 7, 2019, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding the school, Nicasio and De Guzman principally and solidarily liable to pay PHP 21,128.00 as actual damages, PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages, PHP 100,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs of suit, with the Lee spouses subsidiarily liable for the foregoing amounts.

After the Decision attained finality, petitioners sought its execution together with a verified bill of costs totaling PHP 348,014.00. The bill claimed (a) PHP 30,000.00 for complaint, reply and other pleadings and motions from 2011 to 2019, (b) PHP 264,000.00 for attendance of plaintiff Atty. Go and her counsels at 41 hearing dates computed at per appearance for a total of 88 attendances, (c) PHP 5,000.00 travelling fees of five witnesses, (d) PHP 24,014.00 filing and docket fees, (e) PHP 5,000.00 photocopying, notarization and certification, and (f) PHP 20,000.00 payment for transcripts of stenographic notes.

The RTC initially denied execution because respondents had not yet received the resolution on their motion for reconsideration. Upon finality, petitioners filed a Second Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution with Manifestation of the Cost of Suit. In its July 21, 2021 Resolution, the RTC granted issuance of the writ but denied the PHP 348,014.00 as additional costs not passed upon during trial that would effectively alter the final Decision, and it denied reconsideration on September 10, 2021.

• Nature of Review: Petitioner argued that the Petition does not seek review or reversal of the entire order of execution but presents a pure question of law on the denial of items of costs of suit as allegedly additional costs that would alter the decision.
• Attorney's Fees vs. Costs: Petitioner maintained that they are not asking for additional attorney's fees not proven during trial, because the PHP 100,000.00 awarded in the judgment is an item of damages while appearance fees paid to counsel are costs of suit or necessary expenses awarded separately and distinctly from attorney's fees.
• Compliance with Rule 142: Petitioner alleged that they submitted their items of cost of suit pursuant to Rule 142, Section 8 of the Rules of Court and that the claim is in conformity with the trial court's Decision awarding costs of suit.

• Non-Appealability of Execution Order: Respondent Saint Jude Catholic School Manila, Inc. et al. countered that the Petition should be denied because the Rules expressly prohibit appeal from an order of execution under Rule 41, Section 1.
• Additional Attorney's Fees and Excess Over Rules: Respondent Saint Jude Catholic School Manila, Inc. et al. argued that petitioners seek additional attorney's fees not proven during trial and that, even if allowable as costs, the amounts prayed for exceed those allowed under the Rules.
• Improper and Unreasonable Costs and Procedure: Respondent spouses Eugene Lee and Joanne Lee countered that the alleged costs are improper, unreasonable and unconscionable and cannot be taxed as costs, and that petitioners in any event failed to comply with the required procedure for assessment of costs.

• Appealability of Ruling on Costs: Whether the denial of the items of cost of suit, embodied in an order granting execution, is appealable by certiorari under Rule 45 as a ruling on taxation of costs.
• Simultaneous Recovery as Damages and Costs: Whether attorney's fees already awarded as damages may again be recovered as costs through counsel appearance fees and related litigation expenses.
• Exclusive Statutory Costs: Whether costs recoverable by the prevailing party are limited exclusively to those fixed in Rule 142, Sections 9 to 11 of the Rules of Court.
• Proper Taxation Procedure: Whether taxation of costs in the Regional Trial Court must be made by the clerk of court upon notice before the court may pass upon disputed items or include them in execution.

• Appealability of Ruling on Costs: Yes. The denial of the bill of costs is a final ruling on taxation of costs, appealable under Rule 45 insofar as costs are concerned, notwithstanding the prohibition on appealing an order of execution.
• Simultaneous Recovery as Damages and Costs: No. Attorney's fees awarded as damages cannot simultaneously be taxed as costs in excess of Rule 142 amounts, the PHP 264,000.00 appearance fees being improper duplication.
• Exclusive Statutory Costs: Yes. Only the costs enumerated in Rule 142, Sections 9 to 11, and no other, may be recovered by the prevailing party, including PHP 15.00 for complaint or answer and PHP 20.00 for attendance down to final judgment.
• Proper Taxation Procedure: Yes. In superior courts costs must be taxed by the clerk on five days' written notice with opportunity to object and appeal to the court; outright judicial denial without clerk's assessment was erroneous.

• Appealability of Ruling on Costs: While the assailed Resolutions granted execution and are unappealable as such, the portion denying the bill of costs resolved taxation of costs. Following Del Rosario vs. Hon. Bayona, such a ruling is final in character, not merely interlocutory, and may be appealed if the party disagrees with costs as taxed. Hence the Rule 45 remedy was correct insofar as costs were concerned.
• Simultaneous Recovery as Damages and Costs: Petitioners already received PHP 100,000.00 as attorney's fees as damages, which had attained finality. Section 6 of Rule 142, read with Section 10's phrase and no other, bars taxing attorney's fees as costs except as provided by civil law. Awarding reasonable attorney's fees as damages under Article 2208 only to later award actual appearance fees as costs would absurdly duplicate and split the award, contrary to Section 6's statement that it has no relation to fees charged by an attorney against the client.
• Exclusive Statutory Costs: Costs have a fixed technical meaning as statutory allowances to reimburse the successful party. Under Section 10, only (a) PHP 15.00 for complaint or answer and no other pleading or motion, (b) PHP 20.00 for own and attorney's attendance down to final judgment, (c) PHP 2.00 per witness per day plus lawful traveling fees, (d) PHP 5.00 per deposition produced in evidence, (e) nothing for original documents produced, (f) lawful fees for official copies, and (g) lawful docket, process and clerk's fees may be recovered. Reliance on Norsk Hydro (Philippines), Inc. vs. Premiere Development Bank was misplaced, since other costs taxable against a losing party under Rule 23, Section 18 and Rule 32, Section 13 are distinct from costs recoverable by the successful party.
• Proper Taxation Procedure: Unlike inferior courts where the judge taxes costs, superior court costs require assessment by the clerk on five days' written notice with verified statement, written objections, and appeal to the court from the clerk's taxation, per Romulo vs. Dasalla. Taxation is a condition precedent to payment, to judicial resolution of disputed items, and to inclusion in execution. Because no clerk's taxation occurred, remand for assessment under Rule 142 was required instead of outright denial of a gross sum.

• Costs of suit as statutory allowance — Costs are certain allowances authorized by statute to reimburse the successful party for expenses incurred in prosecuting or defending an action. Applied to hold that only costs fixed by Rule 142, Sections 9 to 11 may be recovered by the prevailing party, any other item under that category being properly damages rather than costs.
• Attorney's fees as costs vs. as damages — No attorney's fees shall be taxed as costs against the adverse party except as provided by the rules of civil law, and such provision has no relation to fees charged by an attorney against the client. Prior to the Civil Code, attorney's fees were recoverable only as costs; under Article 2208 they may be awarded as reasonable actual or compensatory damages only upon stipulation or in the eleven enumerated instances, and even then require factual, legal and equitable justification. Applied to bar simultaneous recovery of PHP 100,000.00 as damages and PHP 264,000.00 appearance fees as costs, limiting counsel attendance costs to PHP 20.00.
• Ordinary vs. extraordinary concept of attorney's fees — In the ordinary concept, attorney's fees are reasonable compensation paid by client to lawyer by agreement for legal services; in the extraordinary concept, they are indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party under Article 2208, payable to the client unless agreed to pertain to the lawyer. Applied to distinguish the final PHP 100,000.00 damages award payable to petitioners from the unallowable claim for counsel appearance fees as costs.
• Taxation of costs by clerk of court — In inferior courts costs are taxed by the judge and included in the judgment; in superior courts costs shall be taxed by the clerk on five days' written notice with verified bill, written objections, and appeal to the court, with costs inserted in the judgment if taxed before entry and enforced by execution. Taxation is a condition precedent to obligation to pay, to judicial ruling on disputed items, and to inclusion in execution. Applied to require remand for clerk's assessment instead of outright judicial denial.

• "The only costs of suit recoverable by the prevailing party are those fixed in Rule 142, Sections 9 to 11 of the Rules of Court, any other item included in a judgment under that category being properly a matter of damages rather than of costs." — States the controlling limitation on recoverable costs that defeats the PHP 348,014.00 claim and frames the entire damages-versus-costs analysis.
• "Thus, attorney's fees in excess of the amounts fixed by the Rules cannot be taxed as costs against the adverse party." — Articulates the ratio that the PHP 100,000.00 Article 2208 award cannot be supplemented by PHP 264,000.00 in appearance fees as costs.
• "In superior courts, costs shall be taxed by the clerk on five days written notice given by the prevailing party to the adverse party." — Defines the mandatory procedure whose omission required remand for clerk's assessment rather than outright denial by the judge.
• "Where a party claims attorney's fees as damages, an allowance of attorney's fees by the court on motion, taxed as part of costs, is improper." — States the prohibition on duplication or splitting of attorney's fees between damages and costs.

• Del Rosario vs. Hon. Bayona, 92 Phil. 899 (1953) — Followed as authority that a ruling on taxation of costs is final in character and appealable, supporting availability of Rule 45 review of the denial of costs despite non-appealability of execution orders.
• Corpus vs. Corpus, 100 Phil. 529 (1956) — Followed En Banc precedent that during coexistence of Rule 131 (now Rule 142) and Article 2208, only costs fixed by statute, and no other under Sections 9, 10 and 11, may be recovered by the winning party.
• Romulo vs. Dasalla, 108 Phil. 346 (1960) — Followed on mode of taxing costs requiring clerk's assessment on notice with right to object and appeal to the court as condition precedent to execution for costs; basis for remand.
• Norsk Hydro (Philippines), Inc. vs. Premiere Development Bank, 885 Phil. 256 (2020) — Distinguished; its statement that costs of filing suit includes but is not limited to Sections 9, 10 and 11 referred to other Rule provisions taxable against a losing party or witness, such as Rule 23, Section 18 and Rule 32, Section 13, not to costs recoverable by the successful party.
• Castueras vs. Bayona, 106 Phil. 340 (1959) — Cited for history that before the new Civil Code attorney's fees could not be recovered as damages but only as costs.
• ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 499 (1999) — Cited for rule that Article 2208 is an exception to non-recovery of attorney's fees as damages and demands factual, legal and equitable justification, including showing of bad faith beyond erroneous conviction of righteousness.
• Benedicto vs. Villaflores, 646 Phil. 733 (2010) — Cited for principle that attorney's fees as damages are not necessarily equated to amount paid by litigant to lawyer.
• Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 336 Phil. 705 (1997) — Cited for ordinary versus extraordinary concepts of attorney's fees and to whom the extraordinary award belongs.

• Section 10, Rule 142, Rules of Court — Provides exclusive list of costs recoverable in Courts of First Instance, now Regional Trial Courts, and no other; applied to limit petitioners to PHP 15.00 for complaint or answer, PHP 20.00 for attendance to final judgment, witness fees and travel, deposition fees, official copy fees, and docket and clerk's fees, denying PHP 264,000.00 appearance fees, extra pleadings, and original documents.
• Section 6, Rule 142, Rules of Court — Provides no attorney's fees shall be taxed as costs except as provided by rules of civil law, with no relation to fees charged by attorney against client; applied to bar taxing actual counsel fees as costs where PHP 100,000.00 had been awarded as damages.
• Article 2208, Civil Code — Allows attorney's fees and litigation expenses other than judicial costs only upon stipulation or in eleven enumerated instances, and only if reasonable; applied to explain the final damages award and why it cannot be duplicated as costs.
• Section 8, Rule 131 (now Rule 142), Rules of Court — Prescribes taxation by clerk on five days' notice with verified bill, written objections, and appeal to court; applied to hold judge's outright denial erroneous and require remand for clerk's assessment.
• Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Prohibits appeal from order of execution; invoked by respondents but held inapplicable to the separable final ruling on taxation of costs.
• Section 18, Rule 23 and Section 13, Rule 32, Rules of Court — Allow courts to impose costs/expenses for depositions and commissioner's compensation taxable against defeated party; cited to distinguish from costs recoverable by prevailing party under Rule 142.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur. Singh, J., on leave.