G.R. No. 14395 ; September 23, 1918
MARIANO CABUSAO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, VICTOR PALMA, PELAGIA PALMA, and NATIVIDAD PALMA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Judgment was rendered by the trial court on February 2, 1917. The appellant, Mariano Cabusao, subsequently filed a written notice of a motion for a new trial, dated February 15, 1917, which also contained a statement of his intention to appeal the case via bill of exceptions. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial on April 3, 1917. On April 10, 1917, the appellant filed a written notice of exception to the order denying his motion. The appellant then filed his bill of exceptions, which was approved by the trial court. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that the bill of exceptions was not filed within the ten-day period prescribed by law from the notice of intention to appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appeal should be dismissed for failure to file the bill of exceptions within the reglementary period.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal. The Court held that the pendency of a motion for a new trial suspends the running of the period for filing a bill of exceptions. Consequently, the ten-day period to file the bill of exceptions commenced only from the appellant’s receipt of notice of the denial of his motion for a new trial. The record indicated that the appellant received notice of the denial on April 10, 1917. While the bill of exceptions did not state the exact date of its filing, the record showed it was filed no later than April 21, 1917, which was within ten days from April 10. The Court further emphasized that it is the duty of the appellant to state positively in the bill of exceptions the dates of the procedural steps taken, and the duty of the appellee to object to any omissions. In this case, the appellees did not object to the allowance of the bill of exceptions in the trial court.