Briones v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leon Briones, as plaintiff in case No. 989 before the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to allow and certify a bill of exceptions verbatim. The dispute arose from the respondent judge's order excluding certain words from the bill of exceptions, predicated on the belief that Briones' motion for a new trial was filed out of the thirty-day period prescribed by law. Procedural History: Briones was notified of the judgment on December 28, 1918. He claimed his motion for a new trial, dated January 27, 1919, was deposited in the post office on that date. The respondent judge, however, maintained that the motion was received by the clerk of court on January 31, 1919, thus rendering it late. A motion for reconsideration of the denial was also denied. The judge insisted on striking out specific phrases from the bill of exceptions, including oral and documentary evidence and stenographic notes, and requiring the order denying the motion for new trial to be part of the bill of exceptions, unless amended. The Petition: Briones petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the respondent judge erred in considering his motion for new trial as filed out of time. He contended that the period should be counted from the date of deposit in the post office, not the date of receipt by the clerk of court. He further argued that the judge's refusal to certify the bill of exceptions in its entirety, without the excluded evidence and orders, was an abuse of discretion, as it prevented a full review of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to allow and certify a bill of exceptions verbatim by excluding the oral and documentary evidence and the transcription of stenographic notes. Whether a motion for new trial is considered filed on the date it is deposited in the post office or on the date it is received by the clerk of court.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The Supreme Court held that the motion for new trial was filed out of time, and therefore, the respondent judge acted within his rights in ordering the exclusion of the evidence from the bill of exceptions, limiting the appeal to questions of law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated the established doctrine that when a party fails to file a motion for new trial within the period fixed by law, the appellate court will not review the evidence adduced in the trial. Consequently, the petitioner had no right to insist that the evidence be included in the bill of exceptions, as the law did not authorize its review under such circumstances. Therefore, the trial judge was justified in ordering the exclusion of the evidence and related orders from the bill of exceptions. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court definitively ruled that a motion for new trial is considered filed only upon actual receipt by the clerk of court, not from the date of its deposit in the post office, even if registered. The Court cited Section 384 of Act No. 190, which mandates that pleadings and other documents must be presented to the clerk of court where the case is pending. The mere act of depositing documents in the mail, even if registered, is not sufficient to comply with the legal requirement of filing. The period for filing the motion for new trial began to run on December 29, 1918, and expired on January 27, 1919. Since the motion was received by the clerk of court on January 31, 1919, it was filed out of time.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a motion for new trial must be filed within the statutory period, which commences the day after notice of the judgment. Mere deposit in the post office, even if registered, does not constitute filing; the motion must be actually received by the clerk of court. Consequently, if a motion for new trial is filed out of time, the appellate court will not review the evidence, and the appeal will be limited to questions of law.