G.R. No. 14289 ; September 23, 1918
GREGORIO LITUAÑA and FABIAN CALICA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SEVERINO OLIVEROS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
The judgment of the court below was rendered on September 20, 1917. The plaintiffs-appellants’ motion for a new trial was denied on October 20, 1917. On October 25, 1917, the appellants excepted to the order denying their motion and gave written notice of their intention to appeal. The bill of exceptions was presented to the lower court on November 13, 1917. No extension of the term for filing the bill of exceptions was granted. The defendant-appellee moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions for being filed out of time.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court may refuse to allow and certify a bill of exceptions that was filed beyond the reglementary period.

RULING:
Yes. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is granted. The Supreme Court held that the bill of exceptions was filed beyond the ten-day period prescribed by law, which commenced to run from the appellants’ written notice of intention to appeal on October 25, 1917. The filing on November 13, 1917, was therefore tardy, and the judgment had become final.

The Court expressly overruled its previous doctrine in Fischer vs. Ambler and subsequent cases, which held that a trial judge must allow and certify a bill of exceptions regardless of tardiness. Henceforth, when it is clear that the period for appeal has expired, the judge of first instance may, in his discretion, refuse to allow or certify a bill of exceptions. The aggrieved party may still resort to the remedy under Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that in cases of doubt, the better practice is for the trial court to allow and certify the bill of exceptions while stating the pertinent facts.