Garcia v. Hipolito
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Judgment was rendered for the defendants on May 1, 1903. Plaintiffs were notified on May 21, 1903. On May 23, 1903, plaintiffs excepted to the judgment and presented a motion for a new trial. Procedural History: The motion for a new trial was denied on July 23, 1903. On July 28, 1903, the plaintiffs presented their proposed bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions was allowed and signed by the court on August 5, 1903. The term of the court at which the case was tried expired on May 30, 1903. The Petition: The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions on two grounds: (1) that it was allowed after the time therefor had expired, and (2) that it did not contain all the evidence received at the trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the bill of exceptions was allowed after the time therefor had expired. Whether the bill of exceptions can be dismissed for not containing all the evidence received at the trial.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied. The appellants are allowed thirty days from the date of the order to file a certified copy of all evidence not already embodied in the bill of exceptions, with a certificate from the judge that the additional evidence, together with the existing evidence, constitutes all the evidence received at the trial. The clerk shall cause these copies to be printed at the expense of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the bill of exceptions: The Court held that Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a bill of exceptions to be presented within ten days after notice, is not non-extendible. The Court reasoned that considering the conditions in the Archipelago at the time, it would be physically impossible to comply with the ten-day period in many cases, such as when the judge departs from the province or when the stenographer cannot furnish a transcript within the period. Therefore, the period can be extended by court order or consent of the parties. The Court further noted that the appellees' failure to object to the presentation of the bill of exceptions on July 28, 1903, and the court's allowance of it on August 5, 1903, constituted a waiver of any objection regarding timeliness. The common law rule that courts could only act within the term was abolished by Section 53 of Act No. 136, which provides that Courts of First Instance are always open. On the dismissal for an incomplete record: The Court ruled that dismissal is not proper if the defect can be removed and does not affect the substantial rights of the parties, as provided in Section 550 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court acknowledged that while the bill of exceptions did not contain all the evidence, the appellants excepted to the judgment, which under prior rulings allowed them to argue whether the findings of fact supported the judgment. For this purpose, it was not necessary to incorporate all the evidence. However, if the appellants wished to argue that the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence, it would be necessary to have all the evidence before the Court. The Court invoked Section 510 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the Supreme Court to postpone consideration of a case to make the record complete in the interest of justice, and granted the appellants thirty days to submit the missing evidence.
Main Doctrine
The ten-day period for presenting a bill of exceptions is not non-extendible and can be extended by court order or consent of parties, considering the practical difficulties in the Archipelago at the time. Furthermore, an incomplete record may be corrected by the Supreme Court to prevent dismissal, provided the defect can be removed and does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.