Compania General de Tabacos v. City of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Judgment was entered in the court below in favor of the plaintiff, La Compania General de Tabacos, and against the defendant, The City of Manila. Procedural History: The defendant excepted to the judgment and announced its intention to present a bill of exceptions. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was contrary to law. The court denied this motion, and the defendant excepted. The defendant then served and filed a proposed bill of exceptions. A hearing was held, and the court ordered the bill of exceptions to be amended, granting the defendant five days to present the amended version. The defendant complied within the given period. The plaintiff objected to the signing of the bill of exceptions, asserting it was not presented within the time allowed by law. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on a motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions filed by the plaintiff-appellee.
Issue(s)
Whether a motion for a new trial can operate as an exception to the judgment. Whether the bill of exceptions was presented within the time allowed by law, considering the motion for a new trial and subsequent amendments.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied. The Court held that the bill of exceptions was validly presented and approved.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether a motion for a new trial can operate as an exception to the judgment: The Court reiterated its ruling in Antonio de la Cruz vs. Santiago Garcia that a motion for a new trial, presented immediately after notification of the judgment or within a reasonable time, and based on errors of law committed by the judge or insufficiency of proofs, amounts to an exception to the judgment. This principle was applied to the present case, validating the defendant's procedural step. On whether the bill of exceptions was presented within the time allowed by law: The Court found that the plaintiff's objection to the timeliness of the bill of exceptions was without merit. Firstly, the plaintiff's contention that the motion for a new trial could not operate as an exception because it was not based on the ground that the evidence did not justify the findings of fact was already resolved adversely to the appellee in prior jurisprudence. Secondly, even if the motion for a new trial was considered an exception, the bill of exceptions was deemed timely. The Court cited Vicente Gomez Garcia vs. Jacinta Hipolito, where the judge's signing of the bill of exceptions was considered consent to an extension, and the appellee's lack of objection to the proposed bill constituted a waiver of the timeliness objection. In the present case, the appellee appeared at the hearing for the bill of exceptions and made no objection to its allowance on the ground of lateness. Furthermore, the court expressly granted a five-day period for the presentation of the amended bill of exceptions, which the appellant complied with. The objection raised by the appellee on October 21, after the bill had been signed and filed, was considered too late.
Main Doctrine
A motion for a new trial, seasonably filed and based on errors of law or insufficiency of proof, operates as an exception to the judgment. Furthermore, objections to the timeliness of a bill of exceptions may be waived by the conduct of the party, such as participation in the hearing without objection or by express consent to an extension of time.