Escolin v. Garduño
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from civil case No. 883 in the Court of First Instance of Capiz, wherein the plaintiffs, Esteban Alvarez and Agustina Alba, sought relief against the defendant, Simon Escolin. Escolin, the petitioner in this current action, had filed a motion seeking to compel the plaintiffs to deliver 1,700 cavans of palay and 120 cavans of corn, or their monetary equivalent, as material damages. Additionally, he sought P8,000 for moral damages and the return of 50 cavans of palay seized under an attachment. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner's initial motion was denied by the respondent judge on October 3, 1924, a decision later reversed by the Supreme Court, remanding the case for further proceedings. After a subsequent hearing, the Court of First Instance dismissed the motion on September 25, 1928. The petitioner's motion for a new trial was denied, and he announced his intention to appeal via a bill of exceptions. This led to a series of amendments and oppositions concerning the bill of exceptions, including orders from the respondent judge requiring amendments and the petitioner's subsequent motions for reconsideration and an additional bill of exceptions. Ultimately, an order on October 30, 1931, denied a motion to suspend the period for amendment, stating the period had expired. Further motions for reconsideration were denied, and the petitioner was notified of the final denial on March 4, 1932, leading to the institution of the present mandamus proceeding. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the respondent judge to sign and certify the petitioner's bill of exceptions in civil case No. 883. The petitioner argues that his motion filed on July 17, 1930, suspended the twenty-day period granted for amending the bill of exceptions. He further contends that the objections raised by the respondents to the bill of exceptions were untenable and designed to frustrate his appeal. Finally, he asserts that the original bill of exceptions sufficiently narrated the facts and included the necessary pleadings and orders for his appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a motion to suspend the period for filing an amended bill of exceptions (Exhibit O) has the legal effect of suspending the running of the period fixed by the trial court.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the filing of the motion did not suspend the period. Relying on the precedent in Lim vs. Singian and Soler, the Court emphasized that an appellant must file their bill of exceptions within the statutory time or within an additional time expressly allowed by the court. The Court expressly repudiated the view that such periods can be 'tacitly extended.' It reasoned that allowing a mere motion to stop the clock would invite evasion and delay in legal proceedings, which is contrary to the intent of the law. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner waived his right to argue the sufficiency of his original bill of exceptions because he did not seasonably object to the order requiring consolidation. If the petitioner believed his bill was already sufficient, he should have declined to amend it and applied for mandamus immediately rather than waiting until the period expired. Having failed to assert his rights in the proper manner and timeframe, he cannot now be heard to complain of his own failure to comply with the court's order.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a mere motion does not automatically suspend the period for filing a bill of exceptions; such suspension requires an express order from the court. Failure to timely object to deficiencies in a bill of exceptions or to assert rights in the proper manner constitutes a waiver.