G.R. No. 1118 : January 10, 1903
VICENTE GONZALEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TELESFORO CRISANTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The appellee, Vicente Gonzalez, filed a motion to dismiss the appellant’s bill of exceptions. The appellee claimed that the bill of exceptions was signed by the judge and filed in the trial court on October 1, but the certified copy was not filed in the Supreme Court until December 3, which was more than sixty days later. The appellee argued for dismissal under Rule 14 of the court’s rules. The appellant, Telesforo Crisanto, countered that he was not notified of the filing of the signed bill until October 25, and thus the sixty-day period should run from that date. He also argued that he relied on the clerk of court to transmit the copies as required by Article 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

ISSUE:
Whether the bill of exceptions should be dismissed for failure to file the certified copy in the Supreme Court within the sixty-day period prescribed by Rule 14.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss. The Court held that:

2. However, under the circumstances, the appellant’s mistakes of law constituted sufficient cause for the Court to exercise its discretion and refuse dismissal. The rule is procedural and grants the Court wide discretionary powers.
3. Furthermore, Article 500 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits dismissal for “unreasonable failure to prosecute” where there has been “substantial compliance” with the law. The delay here was only three days beyond the sixty-day period (which expired on November 30, with filing on December 3), which was not unreasonable. There was substantial compliance, and no prejudice to the appellee. Dismissing the bill would penalize the appellant for a misconstruction of the rules, which Article 500 expressly forbids.

The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions was denied.