Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > August 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 7953 August 28, 1912 - CHAN-SUANGCO v. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER

023 Phil 71:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 7953. August 28, 1912. ]

CHAN-SUANGCO, Petitioner, v. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER, judge, ET AL., Respondents.

Jose M. Memije for Petitioner.

O’Brien & DeWitt for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; MANDAMUS. — Section 143 of Act No. 190 requires "a specific statement of each ruling, order, or judgment that has been excepted to." This means an exact or accurate copy, and mandamus will not live to compel the trial judge to approve a bill of exceptions until the proposed bill presented by the party appearing contains such copies.

2. ID.; ID.; CORRECTION OF THE BILL. — The trial judge, although required to restate the facts and exceptions , if need be, is not required, under section 143 of Act No. 190, to perform the actual mechanical labor of preparing the final draft of the same. The result of such a ruling would be that the trial judge would be compelled to practically prepare the bill of exceptions.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J. :


This is original application in this court praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directed to the respondent, the Honorable Charles S. Lobingier, one of the judges of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to approve a certain proposed bill of exceptions presented for the plaintiff in the case of Chan-Suangco v. R. A. Moss and H. M. Ray.

It is alleged in the petition that after making the material amendments suggested by the defendants, the bill of exceptions was presented to the respondent for approve the proposed bill unless the same was accompanied with the proofs presented during the trial, especially the transcript of the stenographer’s notes.

In his answer to the order to show cause, the respondent states that he declined to approve the proposed bill presented by the plaintiff because (1) the said bill contained" a garbled incorrect copy of the judgment;" and (2) that similar errors and omissions appeared in the pretended copy of the order overruling the motion for a new trial. Respondent further states that the fact that the proposed bill did not contain a correct copy of the judgment was expressly called to the attention of counsel for the plaintiff when said bill was presented and that counsel had inserted in ink in the second paragraph of the judgment after the word" called," the words "for hearing on the date of its assignment the plaintiff failed" and nothing more, leaving the first paragraph subject to the same defects and omissions as had been pointed out at the hearing. This court thereupon directed that a certified copy of the original judgment be united to the record in this case, and that the parties be given ten days within which to take such other steps as they might desire.

The order disapproving the proposed bill of exceptions reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"An alleged bill of exceptions is presented in this case which contains no correct copy of the judgment or findings of fact, and were are accordingly unable to approve the same.

"In addition to this, although the case presents a question of fact, no transcript of the testimony is presented in connection with the alleged bill of exceptions.

"We are asked to sign a certificate that this bill contains all that is necessary for a correct understanding of the errors assigned, and this we cannot do under the foregoing circumstances."cralaw virtua1aw library

A comparison of the copy of the judgment appearing in the proposed bill of exceptions with the certified copy of the same as submitted to this court, shows in one instances a very material omission of words. In the first paragraph of the judgment the following —

". . . all causes at issue are to be assigned. The same order provides that no notice of assignment shall be sent to counsel . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

reads in the copy incorporated into the proposed bill of exceptions as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . all causes at issue are to be assignment shall be sent to counsel . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Counsel for petitioner insists that if the proposed bill did not contain an exact copy of the judgment it was the duty of the respondent, under section 143 of Act No. 190 to make the necessary corrections and approve the bill as corrected.

The pertinent portion of section 143 reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The judge shall thereupon, after reasonable notice to both parties and within five days from the presentation of the bill of exceptions to him, restate the facts it nee be, and the exceptions, so that the questions of the law therein involved, and their relevancy shall all be made clear, and when the bill of exceptions has been perfected and allowed by the judge, he shall certify that it has been so allowed and the bill of exceptions shall be filed with the other papers in the action, and the same shall thereupon be transferred to the Supreme Court for determination of the questions of law involved."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be noted that the section provides that the judge shall restate the facts if need be and the exceptions. Can this mean that the judge must, if necessary, perform the actual mechanical work of copying the pleadings, orders, and judgments in a proposed bill of exceptions? If he can be compelled to actually correct the copy of the judgment in such a bill, there is no reason why he cannot be compelled to make a correct copy of any or all the documents. If this can be done, the result would be that the judges of trial courts could be compelled to practically prepare the bills of exceptions presented by making correct copies of all the pleadings, orders, and judgments. The legislature never intended that the judges should be required to do the actual mechanical work of copying or making corrected copies of such documents. This is duty of the party presenting the bill of exceptions. The statute says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The excepting party shall cause to be presented to the judged a specific statement of each ruling, order, or judgment that has been excepted to."cralaw virtua1aw library

A grabled or incorrect copy is not a specific statement of a judgment. "Specific" is defined —

"Precisely formulated or restricted; specifying; definite, or making definite; explicit; of an exact or particular nature; as a specific statement." (Wenster’s, title "specific.")

So it is clear that the words "shall thereupon restate the facts and exceptions if need be" do not include the making of correct copies, but only mean that the judge shall restate the facts and exceptions in those cases where the parties differ as to such facts, and so to whether or not the exceptions inserted were properly taken at the time of the trial. In other words, the judge is required to restate the facts and exceptions where there is an actual controversy between the parties and when he is required to decide what actually took place during the trial.

It is said that the judge declined to approved the proposed bill of exceptions in this case on the ground that the transcript of the stenographer’s notes was not united with the said bill. On examination of the order above copied it will be noted that the bill was disapproved on the ground that it did not contain a correct copy of the judgment or findings of fact. This is specifically stated in the first paragraph of the order. It is true that it is stated in the second paragraph that no transcript of the testimony accompanied the alleged bill of exceptions, and of course this would not be a sufficient reason to justify the respondent in failing to approve the proposed bill. But the respondent in his answer states that he has at all times been ready and willing to certify the bill exceptions whenever it contained a correct copy of the judgment and orders. Counsel for the petitioner states that it was impossible for him to present correct copy of the judgment for the reason that it had not been translated into the Spanish language, but he does not state that he requested the court to direct its officials to furnish him a translation of this judgment. Had he done so, no doubt the respondent would have immediately directed a translation made. When the bill of exceptions is presented to the respondent in due form, of will no doubt be signed; but the respondent was perfectly justified in refusing to approve the proposed bill of exceptions presented, on the ground that it did not contain a correct copy of the judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, judgment is rendered in favor of the respondent, dismissing the petition, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, 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






August-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 7311. August 5, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NALUA and KADAYUM, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7313. August 9, 1912.] PRUDENCIO DE JESUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7443. August 12, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MACARIO DOMINGO ET AL., Defendants. CELESTINO RAMIREZ and REGINA DOMINGO, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6784. August 15, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICENTA LICARTE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6940. August 15, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROGACIANO R. RIMON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7337. August 16, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEONARDO BANDOC, Defendant-Appellant

  • [G.R. No. 7454. August 16, 1912.] PLACIDO LOZANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. IGNACIO ALVARADO TAN SUICO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 7459. August 16, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7123. August 17, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROSALINO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7194. August 17, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRISPIN PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6984. August 19, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GENOVEVA DESTRITO and GREGORIO DE OCAMPO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7015. August 19, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BENGSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7260. August 21, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EMILIO SANTOS REYES ET AL., Defendants. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7422. August 22, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TELESFORO FRIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7284. August 23, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE BATALLONES ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6610. August 24, 1912.] ELEUTERIA VILLANUEVA ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. VALERIANO CLAUSTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6999. August 24, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CIRILO MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7226. August 24, 1912.] HE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LIO TEAM, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6968. August 27, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILIO CASTRO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 7953. August 28, 1912.] CHAN-SUANGCO, Petitioner, vs. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER, Judge, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 6942. August 30, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GIL GAMAO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6992. August 30, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AGUSTIN JUEVES ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 6612. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHAN GUY JUAN (alias Chino Aua), Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 6866. August 31, 1912.] AMADA and CARMEN MESTRES Y YANGCO, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Opponent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 7225. August 31, 1912.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MANUEL ZABALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 7311 August 5, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NALUA, ET AL

    023 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 7443 August 12, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

    023 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 6784 August 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTA LICARTE

    023 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 6940 August 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ROGACIANO R. RIMON

    023 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 7337 August 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LEONARDO BANDOC

    023 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 7454 August 16, 1912 - PLACIDO LOZANO v. IGNACIO ALVARADO TAN SUICO

    023 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 7459 August 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FIGUEROA

    023 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 7123 August 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. ROSALINO RODRIGUEZ

    023 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 7194 August 17, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CRISPIN PERALTA

    023 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 6984 August 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA DESTRITO, ET AL

    023 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 7015 August 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BENGSON

    023 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 7260 August 21, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO SANTOS REYES, ET AL

    023 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 7422 August 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. TELESFORO FRIAS

    023 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 7284 August 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE BATALLONES, ET AL

    023 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 6610 August 24, 1912 - ELEUTERIA VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO CLAUSTRO

    023 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 6999 August 24, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO MARTIN

    023 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 7226 August 24, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LIO TEAM

    023 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 6968 August 27, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CASTRO, ET AL.

    023 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 7953 August 28, 1912 - CHAN-SUANGCO v. CHARLES S. LOBIGIER

    023 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. 7313 August 9, 1912 - PRUDENCIO DE JESUS v. LA SOCIEDAD ARRENDATARIA DE GALLERAS DE PASAY, ET AL.

    023 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 6942 August 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GIL GAMAO, ET AL

    023 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 6992 August 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN JUEVES, ET AL.

    023 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 6612 August 31, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN GUY JUAN

    023 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 6866 August 31, 1912 - AMADA, v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    023 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 7225 August 31, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL ZABALA

    023 Phil 117