G.R. No. 1244 : April 18, 1903
Case Title: LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MIGUEL TUPINO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
This case involves two motions related to procedural matters on appeal. First, the appellee moved to have the appellants’ supersedeas bond (filed to stay execution of the judgment) “completed,” alleging a change due to a surety’s written statement to the clerk withdrawing from the bond. Second, the appellants moved to strike from the bill of exceptions a mass of loose papers that the clerk transmitted to the Supreme Court. These papers were included pursuant to a lower court order that allowed the bill of exceptions and directed the clerk to also certify and transmit “such matters as the adverse party may desire to add thereto.” The contested papers included: (1) an abandoned bill of exceptions from an earlier interlocutory matter (a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction); (2) seventy-nine separate answers from defendants which were identical to the one answer already included by the appellants; (3) the supersedeas bond and related motions; and (4) other unspecified documents.

ISSUE:
1. Should the appellee’s motion to have the supersedeas bond “completed” be granted?
2. Which, if any, of the papers transmitted by the clerk at the appellee’s instance should be stricken from or excluded from printing in the bill of exceptions?

RULING:
1. On the Motion to Complete the Bond: The motion was DENIED. The Court held that the surety’s written statement withdrawing from the bond did not legally affect the bond or release the surety from liability. The bond, as originally presented and approved by the lower court, remained valid.
2. On the Motion to Strike Papers from the Bill of Exceptions:
The abandoned bill of exceptions and documents relating to the preliminary injunction motion should not be considered part of the bill of exceptions for the appeal of the final judgment and should not be printed.
The seventy-nine duplicate answers may remain as part of the bill of exceptions but shall not be printed; only the one answer submitted by the appellants will be printed.
The supersedeas bond and related motions are no part of the bill of exceptions and will not be printed.
The other papers transmitted will be printed as part of the bill of exceptions, with their materiality to be determined upon hearing the case.
The Court noted serious irregularities in the procedure: (a) it is irregular for a judge to sign a bill of exceptions with a general allowance for the adverse party to add papers later; the judge should resolve specific amendments before signing, and (b) the clerk should transmit a single certified document as the bill of exceptions, not a mass of loose papers.

Separate Opinion:
Justice Cooper concurred in the decision not to print the seventy-nine answers but dissented from the portion allowing them to remain as part of the bill of exceptions. He argued that documents added under the irregular clause permitting the appellee to add desired papers form no legitimate part of the bill of exceptions and should be stricken out entirely or disregarded.