GR 37214; (February, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37214 ; February 28, 1933
SIMON ESCOLIN, petitioner, vs. LEONARDO GARDUÑO, Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial District, ESTEBAN ALVAREZ and AGUSTINA ALBA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Simon Escolin filed a motion in Civil Case No. 883, which was ultimately dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Capiz. He appealed by filing a bill of exceptions. The respondent judge issued several orders requiring Escolin to amend his bill of exceptions to meet objections from the opposing parties. On July 5, 1930, the judge ordered Escolin to consolidate his various bill of exceptions submissions into one document within twenty days. On July 17, 1930, Escolin filed a motion (Exhibit O) asking the court to first resolve the suggestions from the opposing parties regarding the bill of exceptions and to suspend the running of the twenty-day period. The court took no action on this motion for over a year, finally denying it on October 30, 1931, on the ground that the twenty-day period had long expired. Escolin then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to sign and certify his original bill of exceptions.
ISSUE
Whether the filing of petitioner’s motion (Exhibit O) to resolve the opposing party’s suggestions and to suspend the proceedings had the effect of suspending the running of the period fixed by the trial court for amending and consolidating the bill of exceptions.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The statutory period for filing a bill of exceptions (or a period for amendment expressly granted by the court) cannot be extended or suspended by the mere filing of a motion. The Court, citing Lim vs. Singian and Soler, held that an extension must be expressly granted by the trial court in response to a petition filed before the expiration of the period. The filing of Exhibit O did not suspend the running of the twenty-day period granted in the court’s order. By failing to seasonably object to the order requiring amendment and by not compelling the judge to sign the original bill through mandamus at the proper time, the petitioner waived his right to later challenge the sufficiency of his original bill of exceptions. The petition was denied with costs.
AI Generated by Armztrong.