California Manila Lumber Commercial Co. v. Garchitorena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The California Manila Lumber Commercial Company filed an action to recover 1,192 pesos for lumber furnished to Jose Garchitorena. Procedural History: The defendant failed to appear on the scheduled trial date. The plaintiff submitted proofs, and a decision was rendered against the defendant. The defendant moved to set aside the judgment, citing the neglect of one of his lawyers and an alleged agreement with the plaintiff's lawyer for settlement out of court. The plaintiff's lawyer denied the settlement agreement. The motion was denied, and the judgment was confirmed. The defendant excepted to the judgment. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review the sufficiency of the evidence when the evidence is not included in the bill of exceptions. Whether the Supreme Court can review the order of the judge below refusing to set aside the judgment for alleged abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The costs of the instance were assessed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence: The Court held that under Section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is prohibited from deciding questions presented by assignments of error relating to the sufficiency of the evidence when none of the evidence received at the trial is contained in the bill of exceptions. Furthermore, there was no motion for a new trial on the ground that the decision was not justified by the evidence. Therefore, these assignments of error could not be considered. On the refusal to set aside the judgment: The Court noted that it does not clearly appear from the bill of exceptions that the appellant excepted to the order refusing to set aside the judgment. Even assuming, without deciding, that the court has the power to review such an order for abuse of discretion, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the order made by the judge below. The appellant's claim of an agreement for settlement out of court was denied by the plaintiff's lawyer, and the denial of the motion to set aside the judgment was within the lower court's prerogative based on the presented facts.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court cannot review questions of fact when the evidence is not included in the bill of exceptions, nor can it review the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment for alleged abuse of discretion if no exception was taken to the order denying the motion.