Lucido v. Vita
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves an action for the recovery of a sum of money, initiated in the justice of the peace court of Nagcarlang, La Laguna. 2. Procedural History: The case was first heard in the justice of the peace court. Following an appeal, it proceeded to the Court of First Instance of La Laguna, where it was tried and decided. The appellees then moved to dismiss the appeal in the Supreme Court, arguing the judgment of the Court of First Instance was final and non-appealable. This motion was denied. Subsequently, the appellant filed a bill of exceptions. The appellees filed a second motion to dismiss, asserting the exception was made out of season. 3. The Petition: The appellees filed two motions to dismiss the appeal. The first motion argued that the judgment of the Court of First Instance was final and therefore not appealable. The second motion, filed after the appellant submitted his bill of exceptions, contended that the exception to the judgment was not made within the legally prescribed time. The Supreme Court denied the second motion, citing rules against successive dismissals on grounds existing at the time of the first motion and noting the appellees' failure to object to the bill of exceptions' approval in the lower court after due notice.
Issue(s)
Whether the second motion to dismiss the appeal, based on grounds existing at the time of the first motion, should be granted. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the alleged untimeliness of the exception to the judgment in the lower court.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the appeal filed on October 23, 1911, is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue regarding the second motion to dismiss: The Court held that a second motion to dismiss an appeal, based on grounds that existed at the time of the first motion, will generally be denied. This rule is well-established to prevent the annoyance and delay of appellants. The Court cited several authorities supporting this principle, emphasizing that such a motion should only be granted if permission was obtained at the time the first motion was denied. On the second issue regarding the timeliness of the exception: The Court noted that the appellant presented his bill of exceptions after some delay, but the appellees were duly notified of its presentation for approval and certification by the lower court. The appellees made no objection to the approval and certification of the bill of exceptions by the judge of the lower court. The Supreme Court stated that it would be slow to dismiss an appeal on grounds that existed at the time the bill of exceptions was presented for approval, especially when the appellees waited until after the appellant had incurred the expense of printing their bill of exceptions in the Supreme Court. This inaction by the appellees in the lower court, coupled with the subsequent expense incurred by the appellant, weighed against granting the dismissal.
Main Doctrine
A second motion to dismiss an appeal, based on grounds existing at the time of the first motion, will generally be denied unless permission was granted to file it. Furthermore, the Supreme Court will be reluctant to dismiss an appeal on grounds that existed at the time the bill of exceptions was presented in the lower court if the appellees failed to object then and waited until after the appellant incurred expenses in printing the bill of exceptions.