December 1921 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1921 > December 1921 Decisions >
G.R. No. 18030 December 10, 1921 - MARTA FONTANILLA v. GREGORIO CASTILLO, ET AL.
042 Phil 543:
042 Phil 543:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 18030. December 10, 1921. ]
MARTA FONTANILLA, assisted by her husband Jose Gabriel, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORIO CASTILLO and his wife JUANA SALACUP, Defendants-Appellants.
Jose D. Cid for Appellants.
Vicente Llanes for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; TIME WITHIN WHICH TO PRESENT SAME; EFFECT OF ANNOUNCING INTENTION TO APPEAL IN THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, the bill of exceptions in the present case was presented in time.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CABUSAO v. SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA (38 PHIL., 631), REVOKED. — Whatever was said in that case upon the effect of an "announcement of the intention to appeal" in the motion for a reconsideration, was mere obiter dictum. It was not necessary to the decision in that case. That being so, and inasmuch as it is contrary to the general rule established by this court in the case of Layda v. Legazpi (39 Phil., 83), we have no hesitancy in refusing to follow it — our reason being, that the appellant has a right to have the evidence examined by this court, and in order to do that, he must present an exception to the order of the court denying his motion for a new trial.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CABUSAO v. SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA (38 PHIL., 631), REVOKED. — Whatever was said in that case upon the effect of an "announcement of the intention to appeal" in the motion for a reconsideration, was mere obiter dictum. It was not necessary to the decision in that case. That being so, and inasmuch as it is contrary to the general rule established by this court in the case of Layda v. Legazpi (39 Phil., 83), we have no hesitancy in refusing to follow it — our reason being, that the appellant has a right to have the evidence examined by this court, and in order to do that, he must present an exception to the order of the court denying his motion for a new trial.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J. :
In this case the appellee presented a motion asking for the dismissal of the appeal upon the ground that the bill of exceptions had not been presented "within ten days from the date of notice of the order denying the motion for a new trial."cralaw virtua1aw library
It appears from the record that the decision was rendered by the lower court on the 28th day of February, 1921 On the 5th day of March, 1921, the defendants received notice of said decision and, on the same day, presented a motion for a reconsideration upon the ground that the decision was contrary to the weight of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause; and at the same time, and in said motion, stated that, if the same should be denied, he then announced his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court by means of a bill of exceptions. On the 11th day of March, 1921, the lower court denied said motion and the defendants were duly notified of said denial on the 18th day of March. On the 23d day of March the defendants duly excepted to the order of the judge denying their motion for a new trial. The bill of exceptions was presented on the 31st day of March, 1921.
The contention of the appellee is that, inasmuch as the defendants announced in their motion for a reconsideration their intention to appeal in case said motion was denied, the bill of exceptions should have been presented within ten days after notice of the order denying the said motion. In support of that contention the appellee cites the case of Cabusao v. Sheriff of Pampanga (38 Phil., 631). Whatever was said in that case upon the effect of an "announcement of the intention to appeal" in the motion for a reconsideration, was more obiter dictum. It was not necessary to the decision in that case. That being so, and inasmuch as it is contrary to the general rule established by this court in the case of Layda v. Legazpi (39 Phil., 83), we have no hesitancy in refusing to follow it — our reason being, that the appellant has a right to have the evidence examined by this court, and in order to do that, he must present an exception to the order of the court denying his motion for a new trial. (Subsection 2, section 497, of Act No. 190, as amended by Act No. 1596.) Under the rule laid down in said case and others, the appellant has five days within which to except and announce his intention to appeal a mere notice of the order denying his motion for new trial, and then, ten days thereafter within which to present his bill of exceptions. That rule is well established and has been followed in literally hundreds of cases. The rule is so well established and has been followed so consistently that we cannot allow it to be annulled, especially by a, mere obiter dictum, and especially when the obiter dictum recognizes that the rule announced is not a good practice. We think the rule announced in the case of Layda v. Legazpi, supra, stated above, is the better practice and should not be disturbed.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal for the reasons given therein should be and is hereby denied. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Street, Avanceña, Villamor and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
It appears from the record that the decision was rendered by the lower court on the 28th day of February, 1921 On the 5th day of March, 1921, the defendants received notice of said decision and, on the same day, presented a motion for a reconsideration upon the ground that the decision was contrary to the weight of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause; and at the same time, and in said motion, stated that, if the same should be denied, he then announced his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court by means of a bill of exceptions. On the 11th day of March, 1921, the lower court denied said motion and the defendants were duly notified of said denial on the 18th day of March. On the 23d day of March the defendants duly excepted to the order of the judge denying their motion for a new trial. The bill of exceptions was presented on the 31st day of March, 1921.
The contention of the appellee is that, inasmuch as the defendants announced in their motion for a reconsideration their intention to appeal in case said motion was denied, the bill of exceptions should have been presented within ten days after notice of the order denying the said motion. In support of that contention the appellee cites the case of Cabusao v. Sheriff of Pampanga (38 Phil., 631). Whatever was said in that case upon the effect of an "announcement of the intention to appeal" in the motion for a reconsideration, was more obiter dictum. It was not necessary to the decision in that case. That being so, and inasmuch as it is contrary to the general rule established by this court in the case of Layda v. Legazpi (39 Phil., 83), we have no hesitancy in refusing to follow it — our reason being, that the appellant has a right to have the evidence examined by this court, and in order to do that, he must present an exception to the order of the court denying his motion for a new trial. (Subsection 2, section 497, of Act No. 190, as amended by Act No. 1596.) Under the rule laid down in said case and others, the appellant has five days within which to except and announce his intention to appeal a mere notice of the order denying his motion for new trial, and then, ten days thereafter within which to present his bill of exceptions. That rule is well established and has been followed in literally hundreds of cases. The rule is so well established and has been followed so consistently that we cannot allow it to be annulled, especially by a, mere obiter dictum, and especially when the obiter dictum recognizes that the rule announced is not a good practice. We think the rule announced in the case of Layda v. Legazpi, supra, stated above, is the better practice and should not be disturbed.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal for the reasons given therein should be and is hereby denied. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Street, Avanceña, Villamor and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
