Appeal from an order  of the Court of  First  Instance of Laguna in  its election case No. 9518,  entitled  Severino Arambulo,  protestant-appellee vs. Sesinando  Rizal, protestee-appellant,  disapproving  the  statement of  expenses submitted  for approval  by  the  protestee, and  from a similar  order in election  case No. 9519, entitled Matias Belarmino, et  al.,  protestants-appellees vs. Pantaleon  F. Alihan,  et al.,  protestees-appellants.   The  appeals  were certified to this Court by  the Court of Appeals, to which appeal was prosecuted, for the reason that only questions of law are involved.

In  a  decision  rendered by the  Court of  Appeals  in CA-G. R. No. 11205-R,  Arambulo  vs. Rizal, the judgment of the Court of First  Instance of Laguna in favor of  the protestant-appellee was  set  aside and protestee-appellant Sesinando V.  Rizal declared elected.  In the  dispositive part of the decision, it  is expressly stated, "the appellee is hereby  sentenced  to pay the  expenses  incurred and costs."   (In  the other  election  case,  No.  9519, all  the protestees  were  declared  winners "with costs and  legal expenses of the  proceedings against protestants."   Upon the return  of the above cases to the Court of First Instance of Laguna, protestee-appellant Rizal in  election  case No. 9518 submitted a statement  of expenses  of litigation (see Record  on  Appeal, pp. 5, 20-44).  In the other case, No. 9519, the protestee submitted a bill of costs and  expenses for P6,018, Pl,000  for expenses incurred in the litigation and P5,000 for attorneys fees.  In the first case, No.  9518, the expenses incurred, which are contained  in Annex "A," are classified as follows: (1) transportation and subsistence (from January 8,  1952 to October 16, 1953)  of protestee, his party and his  representative; (2)  expert witness fee. P200;  (3)  transportation and  subsistence  of witnesses (which are  supposedly the actual amount  spent);  (4) counsel's fee for hearing; and (5) installment of attorney's fees, all of which reach the total sum of P23,870.40.  The bill of expenses was submitted to the Court of  First Instance and the presiding judge, Hon. Federico C. Alikpala, in an order dated  January 13, 1955, reduced the expenses and costs P728.50  (Record on  Appeal, p. 63). The judge in his order held that the fees  paid to attorneys and to the expert witness, the transportation and subsistence  of the litigants and their counsel in going  to  and attending court trials, cannot be considered incidental  expenses in an  electoral  protest and may not therefore be taxed as costs; and that only witness'  fees and lawful traveling as provided in the Rules are collectible, that is, at the rate  of one  peso a day for each witness and ten centavos per  kilometer for his transportation. In the other case, No. 9519,  the lower court rejected the claim  of P1,000  for expenses incurred for the reason  that  the same  is  not itemized.   It  also rejected the  amount  of P5,000  as  attorneys'  fees.  It is against the above  orders that the appeal has been taken.

The only provision in the Revised  Election Code about expenses and costs in an election contest is  that found in Section 180  which provides:

"Sec.  180. Bond or cash deposit. Before the courts shall take cognizance of  a protest or a  counter-protest or admit  an appeal, the party  who  has  filed the pleading  or  interposed the appeal shall file a bond with two sureties satisfactory to the court and for such amount as  it may fix,  to answer for the payment of all expenses and  costs incidental to said motion or  appeal,  or shall deposit with the court cash  in  lieu of  the bond  or both as the court  may order.  * * *.  In case the  party  who  has paid the expenses and costs wins, the court  shall assess, levy and collect the same as costs from the losing party."

As election  contests are  to be  tried  and decided by the courts, it is  evident that with respect to costs such contests  shall be governed by  the  Rules of Court on costs. The Rules of Court expressly provides that a witness is entitled to a daily subsistence of one peso and a travelling fee of ten centavos per kilometer for days of trial  actually and necessarily  attended.  May  a party  in an  election contest  demand  for  travelling expenses  and subsistence during trials amounts  exceeding those  expressly  fixed in the Rules of Court?  We do not believe so.  There being no  express  provision fixing  costs  in  election cases, those fixed  by the Rules for ordinary court cases should govern, as  trial of such cases are  held  by the courts.   Neither do we believe that they  can be justified as expenses because that would authorize a party to  collect amounts beyond what the  Rules provide.   So when the Court of  Appeals decreed that the loser  shall pay costs  it could not have meant that expenses which are ordinarily known  as costs were  chargeable  against  the  losing party.

What  then  is the  concept of  the  term "expenses" mentioned in the decision and in the law? Two cases decided by this Court,  namely, those of Torres vs. Ribo, 92 Phil., 1019 and Fojas  vs.  Garcia, 92 Phil., 983 have explained the concept of this term.  In the first case attorneys' fees and expenses incurred for securing  stenographic notes as  well as for printing  the  brief in the counter-protest were  rejected,  but the commissioners'  fees of P2,008.00 paid  for  checking the ballots  were considered  taxable as  expenses.  In the second case,  the  sum of  P4,672.00 paid  to  the revisors  of the ballots  and  the  sum  of P200  as fee to the clerk of  court  for acting  as chairman of said revisors, and P200 for transportation, handling and custody  of the ballot boxes were  allowed.  These two decisions establish the  rule that  expenses incidental to  an election contest,  like  revisors' or commissioners' fees  are taxable as expenses.  The work of commissioners is a part of the judicial process; so is that of revisors of ballots, and the handling of ballot boxes, etc.  The word "expenses" in election contests, therefore, should mean actual expenses connected with  the trial and not expenses that attorneys and their clients may have incurred in preparing for trial and in defending their side  of  the case.  So  should the collection of ballot boxes, their handling and preservation, the fees of commissioners  or referees appointed  by the court to examine the ballots and make their reports to the court  be considered expenses  contemplated  in the  law.

The  supposed  expenses included  in the bill of costs submitted by the protestee-appellant which were  not for transportation and subsistence of the protestee, his party or his  representative, were  either for his own attorney's fees and for his  expert witness' fee,  both of which are entirely for his own  personal  benefit.

Attorneys' fees are never considered as costs; unless it  is expressly provided by the law  or imposed  by the judge  as costs they  may  not  be  charged  against the other party.  Attorneys' fees are  the subject of an express provision of the Civil Code  in special  cases.  The Rules, on  the other  hand, allow  P40.00 only  for the appearance of a  party and his attorney and this sum may not  be increased except  under express provisions of law or  of the judgment of the  court.

Finding  that  the   judgments appealed from   are  in accordance with the  law  and  the  Rules,  it is hereby affirmed,  with costs  of  this   appeal  against   the appellants.   So  ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes,  A., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.