Herrer v. Herrera
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute between Joaquin Ma. Herrer and Arsenio Cruz Herrera. The underlying legal matter involved a case presided over by Judge John C. Sweeney of the Court of First Instance of Manila. 2. Procedural History: Following a ruling in the case of Herrer vs. Herrera, the defendant, Arsenio Cruz Herrera, through his attorney Ariston Estrada, presented a bill of exceptions to Judge John C. Sweeney. Judge Sweeney refused to sign and certify this bill of exceptions. 3. The Petition: This is an application for a writ of mandamus under section 499 of Act No. 190. The petitioner seeks to compel Judge Sweeney to sign and certify the bill of exceptions. The refusal was based on the judge's assertion that an exception to the denial of a motion for a new trial was not properly presented, a claim disputed by the petitioner's attorney and supported by the testimony of the deputy clerk and a contemporaneous written note.
Issue(s)
Whether the judge of the Court of First Instance committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in refusing to sign and certify the bill of exceptions. Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the judge to sign and certify the bill of exceptions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering that the writ of mandamus should issue forthwith. The Court found sufficient evidence to compel the judge to sign and certify the bill of exceptions.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the judge's refusal to sign and certify the bill of exceptions was based on his lack of recollection or belief that the exception was not properly presented. However, the positive and sworn statements of the attorney for the applicant, Ariston Estrada, and the deputy clerk of court, R. Heras, attested that the motion for a new trial was submitted, denied, and an exception was taken. The deputy clerk's testimony was further corroborated by a written memorandum noted at the time the exception was presented. Given this strong evidence, the Court concluded that the exception was indeed presented and noted as required. The judge's mere lack of memory or note to that effect was insufficient to overcome the positive assertions of counsel and the clerk. On Issue 2: Based on the finding that the exception was properly taken and noted, the Court determined that the judge had a ministerial duty under Section 499 of Act No. 190 to sign and certify the bill of exceptions. The refusal to perform this duty, when the conditions for its performance were met, warranted the issuance of a writ of mandamus. The Court emphasized that mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and certifying a properly presented bill of exceptions falls within this category. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was granted to compel the judge to perform his legal obligation.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus is available to compel a judge to perform a ministerial duty, such as the certification of a bill of exceptions. In this case, the judge's refusal to certify the bill of exceptions was based on his alleged lack of recollection of the exception being taken. However, the positive and sworn statements of the attorney for the defendant and the deputy clerk of court, supported by a written memorandum noted at the time, were deemed sufficient to establish that the exception was indeed presented and noted. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was granted to compel the judge to perform his duty.