Lituaña v. Oliveros
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The plaintiffs-appellants filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the lower court on October 20, 1917. The plaintiffs-appellants excepted to this order and gave written notice of their intention to appeal on October 25, 1917. The bill of exceptions was presented to the lower court on November 13, 1917. Procedural History: The defendant-appellee filed a motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, alleging that it was filed beyond the reglementary period. The lower court rendered its judgment on September 20, 1917. The Petition: The plaintiffs-appellants sought to appeal the denial of their motion for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the judge of first instance may refuse to allow and certify a bill of exceptions if it is filed out of time.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss is granted. The bill of exceptions was filed out of time, and the judgment had become final. The Supreme Court expressly disapproved the contrary rule previously announced by the Court, holding that the judge of first instance may, in his discretion, refuse to allow or certify a bill of exceptions when the appeal period has expired.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the reglementary period: The Court noted that the judgment was rendered on September 20, 1917, the motion for a new trial was denied on October 20, 1917, and notice of appeal was given on October 25, 1917. The bill of exceptions was presented on November 13, 1917. No extension for filing the bill of exceptions was granted. The Court clarified that when a written notice of intention to appeal is filed, the ten-day period for presenting the bill of exceptions commences from the date of the presentation of such written notice. Since the bill of exceptions was filed on November 13, 1917, which was beyond the ten-day period from October 25, 1917, it was filed too late. On whether the judge of first instance may refuse to allow and certify a bill of exceptions if it is filed out of time: The Court, while acknowledging the previous rule that judges should allow and certify bills of exceptions regardless of tardiness to allow the appellate court to determine its own jurisdiction, expressly disapproved this rule. The Court stated that in the majority of cases, the determination of whether a bill of exceptions should be allowed involves a simple computation of time. When it appears that the appeal term has expired, the judge of first instance may, in his discretion, refuse to allow or certify the bill of exceptions. The Court emphasized that henceforth, subject to the provisions of Article 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the allowance or disallowance of a bill of exceptions will depend, in the first place, upon the judgment of the lower court regarding the viability of the appeal. The Court also noted that when there is doubt, the better practice is to allow and certify the bill of exceptions, stating the facts upon which the right to appeal depends.
Main Doctrine
The judge of first instance may, in his discretion, refuse to allow or certify a bill of exceptions if it appears that the term within which the appeal may be taken has expired, expressly disapproving the contrary rule previously announced by the Supreme Court.