G.R. No. 1336, May 14, 1903
GABRIELA ALIÑO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. IGNACIO VILLAMOR, judge of First Instance of Cavite, respondent.

FACTS:
The petitioners filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the respondent Judge of First Instance of Cavite. They sought to compel the judge to certify a bill of exceptions. This proposed bill of exceptions included the argument of the opposing counsel during the trial and the evidence presented. The record indicates that the only exception taken by the petitioners in the lower court was an exception to the judgment itself.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent judge correctly refused to include in the bill of exceptions (1) the argument of counsel and (2) the evidence taken at the trial.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the judge’s refusal.

1. Regarding the argument of counsel: The Court ruled that the judge properly refused to include the arguments of counsel in the bill of exceptions. The sole purpose of a bill of exceptions is to present the facts necessary for the appellate court to review the rulings, orders, or judgments that were excepted to. The arguments of counsel are wholly foreign and irrelevant to this purpose.

2. Regarding the evidence: The Court held that evidence is properly included in a bill of exceptions only when an exception to a judgment is based on the specific ground that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the trial court’s findings of fact. In this case, the petition did not allege or infer such a claim. Since the petitioners’ only exception was to the judgment itself, and they did not claim a complete absence of supporting evidence, the judge was not required to include the evidence in the bill of exceptions.