Cuento v. Paredes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Civil Case No. 2638 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, a judgment was rendered in favor of Eulalio Vita and Nazario Vita (plaintiffs) against Juan Cuento (defendant). Juan Cuento excepted to the judgment and filed a bill of exceptions. Procedural History: The trial court refused to entertain the bill of exceptions and ordered its exclusion from the record. Juan Cuento sought a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to entertain and certify the bill of exceptions. The Petition: Juan Cuento filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the respondent judge and the plaintiffs, seeking to compel the judge to entertain and certify his bill of exceptions.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to entertain and certify the petitioner's bill of exceptions. Whether the notice requirements under Rules 9 and 10 of the Court of First Instance apply to the filing of a bill of exceptions.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. The respondent judge is ordered to reconsider the bill of exceptions filed by the petitioner. No special finding as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the refusal to entertain the bill of exceptions: The Court found that the respondent judge erred in refusing to entertain the bill of exceptions. While the initial motion for a new trial on January 28, 1919, may have been defective for lack of proof of notice to the adverse party, the judgment was amended on February 1, 1919. A subsequent motion for a new trial was filed on February 24, 1919, with notice to the plaintiffs for hearing on March 1, 1919. This motion was denied on March 1, 1919, and the petitioner excepted and gave notice of his intention to file a bill of exceptions on March 6, 1919. The bill of exceptions was filed on March 14, 1919. Following the ruling in Layda vs. Legazpi, the exception and the bill of exceptions were considered filed on time. On the applicability of Rules 9 and 10 of the Court of First Instance: The Court held that Rules 9 and 10 of the Court of First Instance, which require advance notice to the adverse party for the submission of motions, are not applicable to the filing of a bill of exceptions. The Court reasoned that these rules are only applicable when no other provisions are made by law. However, with regard to bills of exceptions, the law provides a special procedure. Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly states that when a bill of exceptions is presented, the judge shall, after reasonable notice to both parties, consider its allowance or correction. This provision places the responsibility on the judge, not the appellant, to notify the parties of the hearing for the allowance or amendment of the bill of exceptions.
Main Doctrine
The judge, not the appellant, is responsible for notifying the parties of the hearing for the allowance or amendment of a bill of exceptions, as provided by Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rules 9 and 10 of the Court of First Instance, which require advance notice from the appellant, are not applicable to the filing of bills of exceptions due to the existence of a special procedure provided by law.