Cedre v. Jenkins
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the settlement and allowance of a bill of exceptions. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to act on this matter. Procedural History: The petitioners initiated proceedings seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The Supreme Court issued a resolution on February 15th, directing the judge regarding the bill of exceptions. Subsequently, the respondent judge filed a demurrer to the court's order. The Petition: The Supreme Court, in its resolution, refused to consider the demurrer filed by the respondent judge. The Court clarified that the remedy provided under section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the situation, does not permit a demurrer. Instead, the judge should have stated in writing the reasons for not certifying the bill of exceptions, adhering to the specific provisions of section 499.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge may demur to a complaint in a mandamus proceeding concerning the settlement and allowance of a bill of exceptions. Whether the respondent judge complied with the writ of mandamus issued by the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court refused to consider the demurrer filed by the respondent judge and ordered that he be notified of this decision for his information and guidance. The Court directed the respondent judge to comply with the writ of mandamus by following the provisions of Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge could not demur to the complaint in this specific mandamus proceeding. The Court clarified that the remedy provided in Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the settlement and allowance of a bill of exceptions, is distinct from ordinary actions where demurrers are permissible. This section is analogous to the recurso de queja under the old Spanish Law of Civil Procedure and does not authorize a demurrer. Instead, the judge should state in writing his reasons for not certifying the bill of exceptions. On Issue 2: The Court found that the respondent judge did not comply with the writ of mandamus issued on February 15, 1906. By filing a demurrer, the judge failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court explicitly ordered the respondent judge to comply with the writ by adhering to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Section 499, which outlines the proper course of action when a bill of exceptions is presented for settlement and allowance.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus, when issued to compel the settlement and allowance of a bill of exceptions, requires the respondent judge to follow specific procedural mandates, such as providing written reasons for non-certification, rather than filing a demurrer. This procedural path is distinct from ordinary actions and aligns with remedies like the recurso de queja under prior Spanish procedural law.