Gonzalez v. Crisanto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves a motion to dismiss a bill of exceptions filed by the appellee. The appellee's claim for dismissal was based on the contention that the certified copy of the bill of exceptions was filed in the Supreme Court more than sixty days after it was signed and filed in the lower court, thus violating Rule 14. Procedural History: The appellant argued that he was not notified of the filing of the bill of exceptions until October 25, and that the sixty-day period should commence from that date. He also asserted that Article 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure made it the duty of the clerk to transmit the copies, and he had a right to rely on the clerk's performance of this duty. The Petition: The appellant sought to have the bill of exceptions considered despite the delay, arguing that the delay was due to mistakes of law and that Article 500 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibited dismissal as a penalty for non-compliance where there has been substantial compliance with the law. The appellee moved for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the bill of exceptions should be dismissed for failure to file the certified copy within sixty days. Whether the appellant's reliance on the clerk of court to transmit the bill of exceptions excuses the delay. Whether the delay in filing the bill of exceptions constitutes an "unreasonable failure to prosecute" under Article 500 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissal for failure to file within sixty days: The Court held that Rule 14, which prescribes a sixty-day period for filing a certified copy of a bill of exceptions, does not establish an improrogable term. The rule explicitly allows for an extension of time for cause shown. Therefore, the sixty-day period is not an absolute bar to the consideration of the bill of exceptions. On the appellant's reliance on the clerk of court: The Court found the appellant's claim that he was entitled to notice of the filing of the bill of exceptions to be incorrect. It is the duty of the appellant to follow the proceedings and ascertain when the bill of exceptions is signed and filed. While Article 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it the duty of the clerk to transmit the certified copy, this duty is contingent upon the payment of the clerk's fees for making the copies. An appellant could indefinitely delay a case by refusing to pay these fees, which Rule 14 was designed to prevent. On whether the delay constitutes an "unreasonable failure to prosecute": The Court determined that the delay of three days beyond the sixty-day period, which expired on November 30 and for which the copies were filed on December 3, did not constitute an "unreasonable failure to prosecute" as contemplated by Article 500 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the Court found that there was a substantial compliance with the rule, and the delay did not prejudice the appellee. To grant the motion to dismiss would be to impose a penalty upon the appellant for his misconstruction of the rule and certain sections of the Code, which Article 500 prohibits.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss a bill of exceptions may be denied where there has been substantial compliance with the rules and the delay has not prejudiced the appellee, as the rules of court are generally considered to give the court wide discretionary powers in their application to particular cases, and dismissal should not be a penalty for non-compliance where substantial compliance exists.