GR 1005; (August, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1005 : August 26, 1902
JOSE V.L. GONZAGA, petitioner, vs. W.F. NORRIS, judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros, respondent.
FACTS:
The petitioner, Jose V.L. Gonzaga, filed a petition for mandamus against Judge W.F. Norris. He alleged that during the trial of his main case, the judge excluded certain material evidence he offered, to which he duly excepted. He tendered a bill of exceptions to the judge, but the judge refused to sign it or restate the facts and exceptions therein. Instead, the judge directed the opposing counsel to prepare a bill of exceptions, which was subsequently signed and certified without notice to the petitioner and transmitted to the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought to suspend the printing of that bill and to compel the judge, via mandamus, to transmit the entire record along with the bill he had tendered.
ISSUE:
Whether the remedy under Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedurea mandamus to compel a judge to certify a bill of exceptionsapplies when the judge has certified a bill of exceptions but refused to include exceptions or facts that the appealing party claims were properly presented and vital to the appeal.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court, construing the petition liberally, held that the remedy under Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure is available not only when a judge refuses to sign any bill of exceptions but also when the judge certifies a bill that omits material exceptions properly tendered by the party. The Court reasoned that a judge can just as effectively deprive a party of appellate review by excluding a vital exception as by refusing to sign a bill entirely. The language of Section 499, which applies when “from any cause the bill of exceptions is not certified… without fault of the party,” encompasses situations where the specific bill tendered is improperly disallowed in whole or in material part. The Court denied the request to suspend the printing of the bill already transmitted, as it was nearly complete, but ordered that upon the petitioner filing a copy of his tendered bill, a mandamus would issue directing the judge to return his reasons for not certifying it. The dissenting opinion argued that the statute was intended only for cases where no bill was certified and that the settled bill of exceptions imports verity, but the majority disagreed.