February 1911 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > February 1911 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-6029 February 21, 1911 - BASILIA AHAG v. TELESFORO CABILING
018 Phil 415:
018 Phil 415:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-6029. February 21, 1911.]
BASILIA AHAG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TELESFORO CABILING, Defendant-Appellant.
Domingo Franco, for Appellant.
Enage and Caragdag, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; PARTIES; ADMISSION OF TABDY MOTION. — When a motion is made to bring in a party who is necessary to the action and to the full protection of the moving party, al- though it is made somewhat late in the course of the proceedings the motion should be granted when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of the opposing party.
2. ID.; IDENTIFICATION OF EXHIBITS ON APPEAL. — When, in the course of the examination of a witness, an exhibit is presented to him by counsel for any purpose, the exhibit should be specifically described and identified, so that when the evidence appears in this court on appeal the court may know to what particular exhibit counsel and witness are referring in their questions and answers.
3. ID.; EXHIBITS IN LANGUAGE OTHER THAN SPANISH. — When there is presented in the evidence an exhibit in any language other than Spanish, in the event of an appeal, the exhibit should be translated into Spanish by the official interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation sent to this court.
2. ID.; IDENTIFICATION OF EXHIBITS ON APPEAL. — When, in the course of the examination of a witness, an exhibit is presented to him by counsel for any purpose, the exhibit should be specifically described and identified, so that when the evidence appears in this court on appeal the court may know to what particular exhibit counsel and witness are referring in their questions and answers.
3. ID.; EXHIBITS IN LANGUAGE OTHER THAN SPANISH. — When there is presented in the evidence an exhibit in any language other than Spanish, in the event of an appeal, the exhibit should be translated into Spanish by the official interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation sent to this court.
D E C I S I O N
MORELAND, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Leyte, the Hon. Mariano Cui presiding, ordering the defendant to deliver possession of the lands described in the complaint of the plaintiff and to pay to her as damages for the wrongful detention of the same the sum of P1,375, with costs.
Without discussing the merits, we are of the opinion that, while defendant’s motion, consented to by Francisco Galos, asking leave to bring in said Francisco Galos under the provision of section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and which, for his full protection under the provisions of articles 1478 to 1483, inclusive, of the Civil Code, he ought to do, should have been granted. This motion was somewhat late; not enough, however, to prejudice the plaintiff. The proofs already presented by the plaintiff may stand as if taken on the retrial, he having the privilege of presenting such as other proofs as he may deem advisable.
The oral proofs of both parties are scanty and somewhat vague and unsatisfactory. Upon the new trial care should be taken to make the proof clear and definite. When, in the course of the examination of a witness, an exhibit is presented to him by counsel for any purpose, that exhibit should be specifically described and identified so that when the evidence arrives here on appeal this court may know to what particular exhibit counsel and the witness are referring in their question and answers. In several places in the evidence now before us counsel and witness, in questions and answers, speak of and refer to exhibits without identifying them. It is utterly impossible for us to know to what exhibits they were referring. As a necessary consequence, such evidence is wholly worthless.
Moreover, when there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other than Spanish, if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be translated into Spanish by the official interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation sent to this court. In the case before us there is an untranslated exhibit written in the Visayan language.
The judgment of the learned trial court is set aside and the cause remanded for a new trial, with the privilege to the appellant to bring in as a party Francisco Galos, in accordance with the provisions of law above referred to.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.
Without discussing the merits, we are of the opinion that, while defendant’s motion, consented to by Francisco Galos, asking leave to bring in said Francisco Galos under the provision of section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and which, for his full protection under the provisions of articles 1478 to 1483, inclusive, of the Civil Code, he ought to do, should have been granted. This motion was somewhat late; not enough, however, to prejudice the plaintiff. The proofs already presented by the plaintiff may stand as if taken on the retrial, he having the privilege of presenting such as other proofs as he may deem advisable.
The oral proofs of both parties are scanty and somewhat vague and unsatisfactory. Upon the new trial care should be taken to make the proof clear and definite. When, in the course of the examination of a witness, an exhibit is presented to him by counsel for any purpose, that exhibit should be specifically described and identified so that when the evidence arrives here on appeal this court may know to what particular exhibit counsel and the witness are referring in their question and answers. In several places in the evidence now before us counsel and witness, in questions and answers, speak of and refer to exhibits without identifying them. It is utterly impossible for us to know to what exhibits they were referring. As a necessary consequence, such evidence is wholly worthless.
Moreover, when there is presented in evidence an exhibit written in any language other than Spanish, if there is an appeal, that exhibit should be translated into Spanish by the official interpreter of the court, or a translation should be agreed upon by the parties, and both original and translation sent to this court. In the case before us there is an untranslated exhibit written in the Visayan language.
The judgment of the learned trial court is set aside and the cause remanded for a new trial, with the privilege to the appellant to bring in as a party Francisco Galos, in accordance with the provisions of law above referred to.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.
