Chan-Suangco v. Lobingier
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a case where the petitioner, Chan-Suangco, was the plaintiff. The case was against R.A. Moss and H.M. Ray, and the respondent judge, Charles S. Lobingier, presided over the Court of First Instance of Manila. 2. Procedural History: Following a trial in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the plaintiff, Chan-Suangco, sought to appeal the decision. To initiate the appeal, a bill of exceptions was prepared and presented to the respondent judge for approval. The judge refused to approve the proposed bill of exceptions, leading to the current original application in the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: This is an original application to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the respondent judge to approve a proposed bill of exceptions. The petitioner argues that the judge erred in refusing to approve the bill, contending that under Section 143 of Act No. 190, the judge has a duty to restate facts and exceptions if necessary, and should have corrected any errors in the proposed bill rather than refusing approval. The judge's refusal was based on the bill containing an incorrect copy of the judgment and the absence of the stenographer's transcript.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to approve the proposed bill of exceptions without making the alleged necessary corrections. Whether Section 143 of Act No. 190 requires a judge to perform the mechanical work of copying or correcting documents within a proposed bill of exceptions.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus was denied, and the case was dismissed. The respondent judge was justified in refusing to approve the proposed bill of exceptions because it did not contain a correct copy of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the respondent judge was justified in refusing to approve the proposed bill of exceptions. The judge's refusal was based on the fact that the bill contained a "garbled and incorrect copy of the judgment" and similar errors in the copy of the order overruling the motion for a new trial. The judge had pointed out these defects to the counsel for the plaintiff, who failed to correct them properly. A "garbled or incorrect copy" is not a "specific statement" as required by law, and therefore, the judge was not compelled to approve it. On Issue 2: The Court interpreted Section 143 of Act No. 190, stating that the provision allowing the judge to "restate the facts if need be, and the exceptions" does not include the obligation to perform the actual mechanical work of copying or making corrected copies of pleadings, orders, and judgments. This duty rests with the party presenting the bill of exceptions, who must cause to be presented a "specific statement" of each ruling, order, or judgment excepted to. The judge's role is to ensure clarity of the questions of law involved, not to prepare the bill for the party. The Court emphasized that compelling judges to do this mechanical work would effectively require them to prepare the bills of exceptions, which was not the intention of the legislature.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that Section 143 of Act No. 190 does not compel a judge to perform the mechanical task of copying or correcting documents within a proposed bill of exceptions. Instead, the judge's duty is to restate the facts and exceptions if necessary to clarify the questions of law involved, particularly when there is a dispute between the parties as to what actually occurred during the trial. The responsibility for presenting a specific and accurate statement of the rulings, orders, or judgments excepted to rests with the excepting party.