BAGUIO CITY, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has clarified that “costs of suit” recoverable by a prevailing party are strictly limited to the amounts fixed under Rule 142 of the Rules of Court, ruling that reasonable attorney’s fees recovered as damages cannot be simultaneously taxed as costs.
In a Decision promulgated on April 22, 2025, and penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Court denied a petition filed by Atty. Melita Go and Wayne Go, who sought to recover over PHP 348,000 in litigation expenses—including hundreds of thousands in appearance fees—as part of the “costs of suit” in their successful damage case against Saint Jude Catholic School Manila.
PHP 348,014 Bill of Costs
The case originated from a damages complaint where the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, awarding them actual and exemplary damages, PHP 100,000 in attorney’s fees, and “costs of suit.”
Once the decision became final, the petitioners filed a verified bill of costs totaling PHP 348,014.00. This amount included PHP 264,000.00 for the attendance of their counsel across 41 hearing dates (calculated at PHP 3,000 per appearance), along with fees for pleadings, witness travel, and stenographic notes.
The RTC denied these items, stating that granting them would effectively alter a final judgment. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that appearance fees are “necessary expenses” distinct from the attorney’s fees awarded as damages.
The Exclusive List of Rule 142
The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ attempt to tax actual appearance fees as costs. The Court explained that “costs” in Philippine law have a fixed, technical meaning: they are statutory allowances intended to reimburse a successful party, but they are strictly governed by Rule 142, Section 10.
The Court ruled that while Article 2208 of the Civil Code allows for the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees as actual or compensatory damages, these are distinct from attorney’s fees taxed as “costs.” Under Rule 142, the recoverable cost for the attendance of an attorney is a flat rate of only PHP 20.00—covering all appearances down to final judgment.
“It would be absurd to award a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees as damages, only to later award the actual appearance fees of the prevailing party’s counsel as costs,” the Court held. It further clarified that Rule 142 provides an exclusive list of recoverable amounts, and any expense not included in that list must be sought as damages during the trial, rather than taxed as costs during execution.
The Role of the Clerk of Court
The High Court also noted a procedural lapse in the lower court. The SC pointed out that in Regional Trial Courts, the initial “taxation” or assessment of costs is the duty of the Clerk of Court, not the judge.
The law requires the prevailing party to give five days’ written notice to the adverse party, after which the Clerk of Court assesses the costs. The judge only intervenes if a party appeals the Clerk’s assessment. By denying the costs outright instead of directing the Clerk of Court to perform a proper assessment based on the rates in Rule 142, the RTC judge skipped a mandatory procedural step.
While the Supreme Court agreed in principle that the petitioners were not entitled to the PHP 348,014 they claimed, it denied the petition but remanded the case to the Quezon City RTC.
The trial court was ordered to direct its Clerk of Court to assess the costs of suit strictly in accordance with the rates specified in Rule 142. Under this assessment, for example, the petitioners would be entitled to only PHP 15.00 for their complaint and a flat PHP 20.00 for their attorney’s attendance, regardless of the 41 hearings conducted.
The ruling serves as a reminder to litigants that high-cost litigation expenses—such as premium appearance fees—should be pleaded and proven as damages during the trial, as they cannot be recovered through a bill of costs after the case has ended.
