Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1904 > April 1904 Decisions > G.R. No. 1810 April 22, 1904 - EULOGIO GARCIA v. B. S. AMBLER

004 Phil 81:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 1810. April 22, 1904. ]

EULOGIO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. B. S. AMBLER AND JOHN C. SWEENEY, Respondents.

Chicote, Miranda & Sierra for Petitioner.

Lionel D. Hargis for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; TIME FOR FILING. — An exception having been taken in due time to a judgment rendered in a civil case, and the bill of exceptions having been filed within the period of ten days fixed by the law, there is no legal reason upon which it can be held that the bill was not perfected in time, or that the right to have the case reviewed by the appellate court has lapsed.

2. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF FILING. — The filing of a bill of exceptions in court, duly certified by the clerk, produces legal effects with respect to the exercise of the right corresponding to the appellant to avail himself of his right of appeal, independent of any personal effort on the part of the appellant to require the judge to examine and certify the bill of exceptions so filed.

3. ID.; ID.; TIME FOR PRESENTING; PENDENCY OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. — When an exception is taken to a judgment, and at the same time a motion is made for a new trial, upon the grounds prescribed by the law of procedure if the bill of exceptions is not presented by the within the ten days following by reason of the failure of the judge to dispose of the motion for a new trial until long after its submission, this delay does not cause the right to an appeal to lapse, provided that the bill is filed within the ten days following the date of the adverse ruling of the court upon the motion for a new trial.

4. MANILA COURT; ORGANIZATION; DISTRIBUTION OF CASES. — All cases, civil and criminal, triable before the judges of the city of Manila, are considered, under the organic act, as pending in a single court, the only one created by the law, and are in charge of a single clerk, appointed to perform his duties with several assistants, and therefore the distribution of cases among the four judges sitting in the said court does not involve matters of jurisdiction, but is a mere distribution by rule for the purpose of equalizing the work so far as possible.

5. CIVIL PROCEDURE; BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; BY WHOM ALLOWED. — It is an express provision of the law of procedure that the judge who heard and decided a case is the one upon whom devolves the duty of examining and certifying the bill of exceptions presented in due time. In no case can it occur that to the prejudice of the parties and to the grave detriment of the administration of justice there be no judge to examine and certify a bill of exceptions, because the judge who takes the place of the dead, absent, or disqualified judge is the one whose duty it is to examine, certify, and allow the bill of exceptions.

6. ID.; RIGHT OF APPEAL. — It is the general and constant practice of courts to give every opportunity to the parties to have exceptions and appeals from reviewable rulings and decisions taken before the superior court, unless such action is section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. CLERK OF COURT; DUTIES. — The clerk, his assistants, and deputies, in discharge of their duties, are under the orders, directions, and supervision of each one of the judges of the court, and especially with respect to each case, civil or criminal, in charge of the clerk or his assistants, and which has been distributed to some particular judge.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


In the civil action brought by J. W. Marker against Eulogio Garcia for the recovery of damages, judgment was rendered on the 1st of May, 1903, by Judge B.S. Ambler, then presiding over Part III, condemning the defendant Garcia to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $2625.

On the 7th of the same month of May, the plaintiff presented an exception to the said judgment, asking that it be set aside and that a new trial be granted. This petition was denied by an order dated the 27th of June following. On the 3rd of July of the same year, 1903, the defendant presented to the clerk of the court his bill of exceptions, and asked that there be made and attached to the bill of exceptions a copy of the documentary evidence presented at the trial by both parties.

Judge Ambler was absent from these Islands at the time and the defendant-petitioner was unable to obtain the approval of his bill of exception by the judge who temporarily took Judge Ambler’s place. Upon the return of the latter to this city and his resumption of the duties of his office, the petitioner was still unable to obtain his approval of the bill of exceptions for the alleged reason that the matter was then pending in Part III and that Judge Ambler could not intervene in it without an order from Judge Sweeney directing that the case be transferred to Part I, over which Judge Ambler was then presiding. Judge Sweeney, however, considered the order of transfer required by Judge Ambler was the only one competent to approve the bill of exceptions, the case having been tried before him, and that an order of transfer to Part I was, therefore, not required. Judge Ambler, however, continued to refuse to approve and certify the bill, as did Judge Sweeney, presiding as above stated over Part III, refuse to give an order for the transfer of the matter to Part I.

With these antecedents the counsel for the defendant-petitioner, by a petition presented on the 19th of February last, asked this court for a writ of peremptory mandamus directing Judge Sweeney to issue an order for the transfer of the records of the said case to Part I, in case this court should consider such an order to be necessary, for the approval by Judge Ambler of the bill of exceptions. It was also asked that a writ of peremptory mandamus issue against Judge B. S. Amble requiring him, in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to sign and certify the bill of exceptions accompanying the petition in the form set forth therein, or with such modifications as this court might deem requisite; that the defendants be condemned to the payment of the costs and that such further relief be granted as might be proper and just.

A copy of this petition having served on the respondents, the latter by separate answers filed on the 21st of March last, asked that the petitioner’s prayer be dismissed, for the reasons expressed. Among other things it was alleged that neither the petitioner nor any other person on his behalf had exhibited to the judge of First Instance presiding over Part III or to any Judge of any part prior to January 27, 1904, the bill of exceptions presented to the clerk of the Court of First Instance on the 3rd of July, 1903, while the record was in the latter’s custody. Judge Sweeney’s order of the 25th of January was set forth in his answer. This order stated that the bill of exceptions should be presented to the judge, its delivery to the clerk of the court not being a sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 143. It was also stated that as two entire terms had passed without any appeal having been perfected, the defendant had lost his right thereto and that the plaintiff was entitled to ask for the execution of the judgment. It was furthermore stated that Judge Ambler’s refusal to take cognizance of the petitioner’s motion had been based upon the fact that the matter was then pending in Part III and not in Part I of the court.

The exception against the judgment rendered in the action was duly entered within the term in which the judgment was rendered. The bill of exceptions, also, was presented before the termination of the period fixed for its presentation by section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This bill of exception was delivered to the clerk by the petitioner and received by the former within the time prescribed by law. Furthermore, the efforts of the petitioner to have the bill of exceptions examined and certified by the judge were frequent and persistent. Consequently there is no legal ground for the contention that the appeal was not presented within the legal period and that the petitioner has lost his right to have the judgment reviewed. It is the duty of the clerk of the court to receive bills of exceptions and to note thereon the date of their presentation, the person presenting the same, and all papers and documents were may fully appear when such papers and documents were filed and who presented them, for all legal purposes such bills of exceptions, papers, and other documents received by the clerk may be considered presented to the court. It is the duty of the clerk to report to the judge having cognizance of a suit, or to the judge who many replace him and under whose orders the clerk discharges his functions, the receipt of all papers so filed, immediately upon their presentation or within a reasonable period. (Sec. 384, Code of Civil Procedure.)

The filing mark upon a pleading, document, or bill of exceptions produces by operation of law positive legal effect with respect to the rights of the parties, and the availability of the remedial process allowed by the law. A negligent clerk who, after receiving a bill of exceptions or pleadings which should be presented within a fixed period, fails to perform his duty is unquestionably liable for the damage which his conduct may cause a litigant.

Just as there is only one court in this city presided over by several judges, so there is only one clerk with one assistant and several deputies. (Secs. 49 and 60 of Act No. 136, and subsequent acts increasing the number of judges.)

Consequently, cases pending before the judges of the city of Manila are cases pending in the same court and in charge of the same clerk. The distribution of cases in the court among the various judges is a matter controlled solely by rule, and does not involve any question of jurisdiction. Any one of the judges of the city is competent to try a case assigned to another, whenever it may be convenient for him to do so. And the clerk, with his assistant and deputies, is subject to the orders and directions of each one of the judges in the discharge of his duties, and especially subject to their direction with respect to each case which may be allotted to any particular judge.

The primary rule established by the law of procedure is that the judge who has heard and decided a case is the one upon whom devolves the duty of allowing and signing the bill of exceptions. In case of the death or absence of this judge this court has already rendered a decision establishing rules under which a case can never arise in which there shall be no judge competent to sign the bill of exceptions, or bill of exceptions remain unsigned to prejudice of the parties and to the detriment of the administration of justice. If a court is always provided with a judge, and a dead or absent judge is immediately substituted by another, appointed in his place so that the administration of justice be not delayed or suspended, it follows that there will always be a judge available to allow and sign a bill of exceptions by which the parties may avail themselves of the right to appeal against the judgment.

This being so, Judge Amble should have directed the clerk to call his attention to the bill of exceptions filed with the latter, together with the record and other antecedents of the litigation, and no previous order from Judge Sweeney was necessary. The fact that the case of Marker v. Garcia was tried in Part III, in which the judge now sitting in Part I formerly presided, is no obstacle to the allowance of the bill of exceptions by Judge Ambler, inasmuch as Judge Sweeney makes no opposition to his doing so, and furthermore because, as the case is pending in the single court of Manila, the distribution of cases is not jurisdictional, and Judge Ambler, having tried and decided the case, it devolved upon him in the first place to certify the bill of exceptions.

The bill having been filed within the period prescribed by law, the provisions of section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be complied with. It is not permissible to refuse to permit a party to avail himself of his remedy by bill of exceptions upon grounds not recognized in the law of procedure. The general tendency of courts in matters of procedure is ordinarily to allow all appeals from their judgments, for if the conviction exists that a decision is in harmony with the pleadings, the provisions of law, and the principles of justice, it is a matter of indifference that such decisions be reviewed upon the questions at issue.

With respect to the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to cases submitted to the courts for their decision, the provisions of section 2 should always be borne in mind, which in effect provides that in the interpretation of the code the controlling principle is to be the spirit and purpose of the law, as determined by reason and good sense, rather than the strict letter.

For the reasons stated, it is our opinion that a writ of mandamus must issue, in accordance with the provisions of section 499 and others of the Code of Civil Procedure, addressed to Judge Ambler, and directing him to allow and certify in due form the bill of exceptions presented by the petitioner with the costs de oficio. The parties will be notified of this decision. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


JOHNSON, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Upon the facts alleged in the complaint and answer filed in this case, I dissent from the conclusions of the court expressed in this decision.




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