Loreto v. Herrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eufemia Loreto filed a case against Julio Herrera for certain hemp lands. The Court of First Instance of Tayabas rendered a judgment awarding the lands to the plaintiff. Procedural History: The defendant appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Among the assigned errors was the refusal of the trial judge to grant a written stipulation for the adjournment of the trial. The Appeal: The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a written stipulation for adjournment, which was absolute in terms. The appellant also presented documentary proof of his title after the denial of the motion for adjournment. The Supreme Court reviewed the documentary evidence and the recital of evidence by the trial judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial judge committed an error in refusing to grant the written stipulation for adjournment of the trial. Whether the documentary proof presented by the appellant was sufficient to establish his title. Whether the record on appeal was properly transmitted, particularly the oral testimony.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. The costs were assessed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the trial judge committed an error in refusing to grant the written stipulation for adjournment of the trial: The Court acknowledged that the trial judge's refusal to grant the adjournment based on the defendant not having cited his witnesses, while the plaintiff's witnesses were present, was not a sufficiently strong reason to release either party from their written agreement. However, since this refusal was not excepted to by the defendant, it could not serve as a ground for appeal. Therefore, while the judge's action might have been questionable, the procedural failure to except precluded it from being a basis for reversal. On Whether the documentary proof presented by the appellant was sufficient to establish his title: The Court noted that the appellant presented documentary proof as to his title after the denial of the motion for adjournment. However, the Court found this documentary proof, by itself, to be by no means convincing. The Court relied on the judge's weighing of the evidence, as recited in the decision, and found it to be correct, leading to the affirmation of the judgment. On Whether the record on appeal was properly transmitted, particularly the oral testimony: The Court found the record to be defective because the notes of oral testimony were in English, in pencil handwriting, and not properly transmitted in typewriting. No satisfactory reason was given for the absence of a stenographer or the failure to transmit the notes in the customary form. The Court cited Act No. 1123, which dispensed with the printing of testimony but did not authorize its omission from the bill or its inclusion in illegible form. The Court reiterated that the burden of preparing the bill of exceptions rests on the appellant, and thus, the consequences of the defective record fall upon him. The Court also adopted Rule 17, mandating the recording and typewritten extension of testimony in civil cases.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the appellant has the burden of ensuring that the record on appeal is properly prepared and transmitted. The Court emphasized that while stipulations for adjournment should generally be honored, failure to except to a ruling denying such a stipulation waives the right to raise it on appeal. Furthermore, the case reiterates the procedural requirement for the proper transcription and transmission of oral testimony, and the consequences of a defective record falling upon the appellant.