Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1904 > April 1904 Decisions > G.R. No. 1326 April 9, 1904 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. W. F. NORRIS

003 Phil 636:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1326. April 9, 1904. ]

FELIX FANLO AZNAR, Petitioner, v. W. F. NORRIS, judge of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, Respondent.

Alfredo Chicote, for Petitioner.

Hon. W . F . Norris, in his own behalf.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; EXCEPTIONS. — An exception to the final judgment entitles the party excepting to bring the case before the appellate court for review. Such an exception authorizes the appellate court to determine whether or not the decision is justified by the findings.

2. ID.; NOTICE OF JUDGMENT; ATTORNEY IN FACT. — An attorney in fact of one of the parties litigant is not the proper person upon whom to serve a notice of the decision.

3. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT; AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY. — The fact that a second attorney enters an appearance on behalf of a litigant does not authorize a presumption that the authority of the first attorney has been withdrawn.

April 30, 1903, Don Felix Fanlo presented to the Supreme Court a petition in which he alleged that on the 28th of February, 1903, judgment for the defendant was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Capiz, in a suit in which the petitioner was plaintiff and one Rodriguez defendant; that the petitioner received notice of the decision in the city of Manila the 18th of March, 1903; that on the 25th of the same month a written notice of his exception to the said decision was mailed to the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Capiz through the office of the clerk of the Court of Manila; that on the 2d day of April, 1903, a draft of a bill of exceptions was mailed to the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, which was duly received by the judge of the said court, who refused to allow or sign the same. Upon this facts the petitioner prayed that the writ of mandamus issue, in accordance with the provisions of section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the respondent judge to state his reasons for refusing to allow and sign the said bill of exceptions.

The writ having issued, on March 29, 1904, the respondent filed an answer, in which he admitted that the petitioner had excepted to the judgment in question as alleged in the petition, and stated that he had "refused to sign the document alleged to be a bill of exceptions for the reason that there had been included therein, in addition to the findings of fact and the judgment rendered in the said cause, certain documents presented as evidence at the trial i the Court of First Instance and admitted as such without objection on the part of the petitioner," and further "because said alleged bill of exceptions is not in law such bill of exceptions." The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


Under the circumstances of the case we consider that the exception to the judgment rendered February 28, 1903, by the Court of First Instance at Capiz in the case brought by the petitioner against Rafael Rodriguez, and the bill of exceptions presented by the petitioner in due time and therefore produce the legal affects. By virtue of this exception and the presentation of the bill of exceptions, the right of the petitioner to have the case brought before this court by bill of exceptions was perfected.

The fact that the petitioner did not take ay exceptions in the course of the trial is no obstacle to this conclusion. Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not establish any such requirement, as erroneously contended by the respondent in his answer. An exception to the final decision, although it may be the only exception taken in the course of the trial, as in the present case by bill of exceptions to this court, provided that the exception is taken as in this case within the period and in the manner prescribed by the law. The contention of the respondent upon this point can not, therefor, supported.

Nor can we assent to his contention with respect to the supposed lack of capacity on the part of the attorney, Don Alfredo Chicote, to represent the petitioner at the trial. He was the petitioner’s attorney from the beginning, as appears from the complaint signed by him, and it does not appear that the plaintiff has withdrawn from Señor Chicote his authority to continue to represent him in the case. The intervention in the case of the attorney, Don Jose Gay, does not in itself necessarily imply such a result, because there is nothing to indicate that he did not act with Mr. Chicote by delegation from him, as was stated at the hearing. At all events the utmost that could be said, even giving the utmost possible scope to the supposition of the respondent, would be that the plaintiff reemployed Señor Chicote after having employed Mr. Gay, and this the petitioner was certainly fully entitled to do under the law. Upon this supposition there would be no ground for questioning Mr. Chicote’s authority.

Nor is there any merit in the contention of the respondent that Don Vicente Alonso did not except to the decision. An attempt was made to serve notice of the decision upon this person and he refused to accept the notice, stating that although he was an attorney in fact of Don Felix Fanlo, he believed he had no authority to represent him in the case, as Señor Fanlo’s lawyers were those who represented him, and that any notice to be given should be given to them. From this answer it clearly appears that Don Vicente Alonso, although he had a power of attorney from the petitioner, had not appeared for him and did not desire to appear in the trial. This being so, it is obvious that he could not be obliged to receive a notification against his will, nor was he the person called upon to except to the judgment, notice of which it was improperly attempted to serve upon him.

It is not necessary to make a motion for a new trial in order to be entitled to present a bill of exceptions, as the respondent contends in his answer. The error of such a theory is self-evident. The motion for a new trial produces the effect of giving this court authority to review the evidence taken at the trial, but is not a requisite necessary to the allowance of the bill of exceptions presented in due time. In the latter case, that is to say, in case no such motion has been made, the jurisdiction of the court is limited solely to determining the questions of law presented in the bill of exceptions, upon the basis of the facts found in the judgment of the trial court and those admitted in the pleadings. (Sec. 497, Code of the Civil Procedure.)

In the present case the petitioner made no motion for a new trial, and consequently is not entitled to include in his bill of exceptions the evidence taken at the trial, either oral or documentary. The court could not review them, as has been stated, and therefore it would be entirely useless to bring them here.

Consequently the projected bill of exceptions presented by the petitioner is modified so as to include only the following papers: (1) The complaint filed by the plaintiff against Rafael Rodriguez, pages 1 to 4 of the bill of exceptions; (2) the answer of Rafael Rodriguez, pages 4 to 7 of the bill of exceptions; (3) the decision of the court, on pages 12 to 16 of the bill; and (4) the exception to the decision as expressed on page 16 of the bill, and the certificate of its allowance. No part of the evidence taken at the trial can be included in the bill of exceptions.

It is ordered that the bill of exceptions so modified be certified in due form by the respondent judge.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, McDonough and Johnson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1904 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1656 April 2, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO DE LA CRUZ

    003 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 1627 April 2, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. GEORGE WASHINGTON

    003 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 1107 April 2, 1904 - IN RE: AUGUSTUS A. MONTAGNE & FRANK E. DOMINGUEZ

    003 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 1490 April 2, 1904 - O. F. CAMPBELL AND GO-TAUCO v. BEHN, MEYER & CO.

    003 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 1132 April 2, 1904 - MARTINIANO M. VELOSO v. PETRONA NAGUIT, ET AL.

    003 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 1645 April 4, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. HOGU REYES, ET AL.

    003 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 1564 April 5, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DE LA PATA, ET AL.

    003 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 1625 April 7, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. EULALIO BUNDOC, ET AL.

    003 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 1462 April 8, 1904 - LA RAZON SOCIAL DE HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. ROSENDO LACSON

    003 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 1587 April 8, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO DALAWAN

    003 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 1673 April 8, 1904 - PETRONILA ENCARNACION v. B. S. AMBLER

    003 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. 1542 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CORNELIO DEVELA, ET AL.

    003 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 1559 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO ALBANO

    003 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 1585 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN VIRAY

    003 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 1586 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE NAVARRO

    003 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 1905 April 9, 1904 - FLAVIANO FELIZARDO, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF IMUS

    003 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 1326 April 9, 1904 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. W. F. NORRIS

    003 Phil 636

  • G.R. No. 1614 April 9, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ANACLETO EMBATE

    003 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 1535 April 11, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GINETE

    003 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 1447 April 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO DE LEON, ET AL.

    003 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 1573 April 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS DE GUZMAN

    003 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 1620 April 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO GUILLERMO

    003 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 1318 April 12, 1904 - PRISCA NAVAL, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    003 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. 1547 April 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MANIQUE, ET AL.

    003 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 1574 April 13, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CHOA CHI CO

    003 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 1529 April 13, 1904 - ESTEFANIA VILLAR v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA

    003 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 1492 April 15, 1904 - TAN MACHAN v. MARIA GAN AYA DE LA TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    003 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. 1603 April 15, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FLAVIANO SIMEON

    003 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 1688 April 15, 1904 - FINDLAY & CO. v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    003 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 1329 April 15, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL SAMIO

    003 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 1362 April 15, 1904 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    003 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 1356 April 15, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES BARNES

    003 Phil 704

  • G.R. No. 1412 April 15, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. J. C. WINEBRENNER

    003 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 1853 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN P. MILLER

    003 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 1479 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORINA DE LOS SANTOS

    003 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. 1501 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO

    003 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. 1546 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE RAMA

    003 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 1590 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. TELESFORO RORALDO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 1646 April 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. VENTURA MARIANO

    003 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 1552 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. DAVID TOMULAC

    003 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 1592 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO NATIVIDAD

    003 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 1705 April 22, 1904 - TOMAS BLANCO v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    003 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 1779 April 22, 1904 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    003 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 1385 April 22, 1904 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ ET AL.

    003 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 1477 April 22, 1904 - MARIA GONZALEZ v. SIMEON BLAS

    003 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. 1505 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN BUTARDO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. 1110 April 22, 1904 - ROMAN SARMIENTO v. MORTGAGE & DOMINGUEZ

    004 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 1184 April 22, 1904 - COMPAÑIA AGRICOLA DE ULTRAMAR v. ANACLETO REYES ET AL.

    004 Phil 2

  • G.R. No. 1244 April 22, 1904 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. MIGUEL TOPINO ET AL.

    004 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 1596 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO ZAFRA ET. AL.

    004 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 1616 April 22, 1904 - JUAN CAÑIZARES HIVA v. THE PHILIPPINE TRADING COMPANY

    004 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 1626 April 22, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES ONTI

    004 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 1806 April 22, 1904 - SERVILIANO LANZUELA SANTOS v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    004 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 1810 April 22, 1904 - EULOGIO GARCIA v. B. S. AMBLER

    004 Phil 81