G.R. No. 2413 : March 13, 1905
ESTAQUIA SALCEDO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AMANDA DE MARCAIDA DE FARIAS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
The defendant-appellee filed a motion to strike out the bill of exceptions presented by the plaintiffs-appellants and to declare the trial court’s judgment final. The lower court rendered its judgment on October 13, 1904, and notice was served on the appellants’ attorney on October 18, 1904. The appellants did not immediately give notice of their intention to appeal or file a bill of exceptions. Instead, two months later, on December 19, 1904, they filed a motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, which was denied on December 24, 1904. Only on December 24, after the denial of their motion for a new trial, did the appellants manifest their intention to except to the judgment and file their bill of exceptions.

ISSUE:
Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the period prescribed by law, thereby perfecting the appeal.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court granted the appellee’s motion and ordered the bill of exceptions stricken out, declaring the lower court’s judgment final. The Court held that the appellants failed to comply with Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a party desiring to appeal to inform the court of that intention at the time of the rendition of the final judgment or as soon thereafter as practicable. The appellants’ attorney, upon receiving notice of the judgment on October 18, 1904, did not promptly state an intention to appeal or file a bill of exceptions. By waiting until December 24, 1904after the denial of their belated motion for a new trialto file the bill of exceptions, the appellants lost their right to appeal. The Court ruled that the right to appeal cannot be made dependent upon the ruling on a motion for a new trial filed out of time. Consequently, the judgment of October 13, 1904, had become final. Costs were imposed on the appellants.