Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1918 > September 1918 Decisions > G.R. No. 14395 September 23, 1918 - MARIANO CABUSAO v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

038 Phil 631:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 14395. September 23, 1918. ]

MARIANO CABUSAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, VICTOR PALMA, PELAGIA PALMA and NATIVIDAD PALMA, Defendants-Appellees.

Pascual B. Azanza, for Appellant.

Luis N. Pineda and M. Buyson Lampa, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; NECESSITY OF DATE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR APPEAL. — The bill of exceptions should show the date upon which each step in the proceedings for the perfection of the appeal has been taken.

2. CLERKS OF COURT, DUTY TO NOTE DATE OF PAPERS FILED. — It is the duty of the clerk to note the date of its presentation upon every paper relating to any pending case as soon as it is filed in his office.

3. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; TIME OF PRESENTATION PENDING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. — When the defeated party moves for a new trial and at the same time gives notice of his intention to take a bill of exceptions, the time within which such bill must be presented is ten days from the date of notice of the order denying the motion for a new trial.


D E C I S I O N


FISHER, J. :


This case is before the court upon a motion by the appellees to have the appeal dismissed. The ground upon which the motion is based is that the bill of exceptions was not filed within ten days from the time at which notice of intention to appeal was given.

From the printed bill of exceptions, as approved by the trial Judge, it appears that judgment was rendered February 2, 1917. It does not appear when notice of this decision was given to appellant, but the record shows that some time after the judgment was rendered, he filed in the court a written notice of a motion for a new trial, bearing date February 15, 1917, and that the motion paper contained a statement that it was the intention of the moving party, plaintiff in the court below, to remove the case to this court by bill of exceptions. The record does not disclose when this notice of the motion was actually filed. On April 3, 1917, the court entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Subsequent to the entry of this order plaintiff gave notice in writing of his exception to the court s ruling. The notice of exception was dated April 10, 1917, but it is not shown when it was actually filed in the trial court. Within ten days after the date of this written notice of exception plaintiff filed his bill of exceptions, which was approved by the trial court without objection on the part of the appellees, so far as the record before us discloses.

It is the duty of the clerk of the Court of First Instance to note on every paper relating to a pending case which is filed in his office, the date of its presentation. It is the duty of the appellant, in making up his bill of exceptions, to state positively the date upon which each of the successive steps in the action has been taken. The bill of exceptions should show, not only when the judgment was entered, but the date upon which notice of its entry was received by the appellant. It should give the same information concerning the date upon which the appellant was notified of the denial of his motion for a new trial, and the date upon which he gave notice to the court, in writing or orally, of his exception. The date upon which the bill of exceptions was filed should be stated in the certificate of its allowance by the trial judge. If, as in the present case, the bill of exceptions fails to disclose these dates the appellee is entitled, by objecting to its allowance to an order from the judge directing that it be amended so as to give that information, to the end that this court may determine, if the question is raised, whether the proceedings necessary to perfect the appeal have been taken in due time or not. It is not sufficient for the appellant to say, as is frequently done, that he took these various steps "in due time and proper form." That is a conclusion of law rather than a statement of fact. Of course, if the appellee makes no objection, and the trial judge certifies to the correctness of the bill of exceptions when so prepared, this court will accept the statement as true. It is to the interest of the appellee to see that the bill of exceptions states all the facts necessary to enable us to determine if it was filed in due time, or not, and if he fails to take the necessary action to have any misstatements or omissions corrected, he must endure the consequences.

In this particular case, it is impossible for us to determine, from an examination of the printed bill of exceptions, when the bill was actually presented. The clerk’s filing memorandum is not shown and the bill is not even dated. It is shown that on the 21st day of April the parties were notified by the clerk of the court that they would be heard on the 28th of that month as to the allowance of the bill, and. therefore, it is evident that it must have been filed not later than the 21st. Assuming, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the written notice of the exception to the order denying the motion for a new trial was filed on the same day that it was written — April 10 — it would appear that the bill was filed not later than ten days after the notice of exception was given.

It is true that the bill of exceptions was not presented within ten days after the filing of the notice of intention to appeal, and appellees contend, citing Lim v. Singian and Soler (37 Phil. Rep., 817), that it came too late. But it will be noted that in this case the defendant, instead of waiting, as is the better practice, until the court had ruled upon his motion, anticipated unfavorable action by announcing his intention to appeal at the same time that he moved for a new trial. The pendency of the motion for a new trial stayed the running of the period for the presentation of the bill of exceptions. (Lavitoria v. Judge of First Instance of Tayabas and Director of Lands, 32 Phil. Rep., 204.) The term for the filing of the bill of exceptions in this case did not commence to run, therefore, until appellant was notified that his motion had been denied.

The bill of exceptions in this case fails to disclose when that notice was received, except by the statement of plaintiff in his note of exception, that he received it by mail on April 10. In the absence of proof to the contrary, this statement must be accepted as correct. The exact date of the presentation of the bill of exceptions does not appear from the record before us, but it could not have been later than April 21st, as we have stated. It was, therefore, filed within ten days (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 4) from the date when, in this case, the period commenced to run. The motion to dismiss is denied. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Street, Malcolm and Avanceña, 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






September-1918 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 12762 September 6, 1918 - FELIX RAMENTO v. CIRIACO SABLAYA, ET AL.

    038 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 14576 September 6, 1918 - IN RE: VICENTE SOTTO

    038 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 12605 September 7, 1918 - UY SOO LIM v. BENITO TAN UNCHUAN

    038 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 12208 September 9, 1918 - PEDRO SANTOS v. JULIAN SANTIAGO

    038 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 12209 September 9, 1918 - ISIDRA DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. MARIANO LIM

    038 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 13228 September 13, 1918 - WILLIAM OLLENDORFF v. IRA ABRAHAMSON

    038 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. 13985 September 16, 1918 - VICENTE GARCIA VALDEZ v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    038 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 13203 September 18, 1918 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. (LTD.) v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    038 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. 13392 September 18, 1918 - PAZ NATIVIDAD v. BERNARDO MARQUEZ

    038 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 12264 September 23, 1918 - DOMINGO BANATAO v. SALVADOR DABBAY, ET AL.

    038 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 13153 September 23, 1918 - SANTOS CARTAJENA v. ISAIAS LIJAUCO, ET AL.

    038 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 13799 September 23, 1918 - CATALINO BAUTISTA v. PAULINO FAJARDO

    038 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 14289 September 23, 1918 - GREGORIO LITUAÑA, ET AL. v. SEVERINO OLIVEROS

    038 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. 14395 September 23, 1918 - MARIANO CABUSAO v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

    038 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11897 September 24, 1918 - J. F. RAMIREZ v. THE ORIENTALIST CO., ET AL.

    038 Phil 634

  • G.R. No. 13151 September 24, 1918 - E. A. ENAGE v. La Razon Social "VDA. E HIJOS DE F. ESCAÑO", ET AL.

    038 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 13990 September 24, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    038 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 13288 September 25, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN GINER CRUZ.

    038 Phil 677

  • G.R. Nos. 13841 & 14133 September 25, 1918 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN ABRION ET AL.

    038 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 13229 September 26, 1918 - JOSE FERNANDEZ v. THOMPSON & CO., ET AL.

    038 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 13818 September 26, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO MENDOZA

    038 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 13498 September 30, 1918 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CASTOR, ET AL.

    038 Phil 693