G.R. No. 1534 : January 4, 1904
FORTUNATO RICAMORA, petitioner, vs. GRANT T. TRENT, judge of First Instance of Cebu, respondent.

FACTS:
A case was tried and decided in favor of the plaintiff by Judge Carlock of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. After Judge Carlock’s death, the defendant (petitioner Fortunato Ricamora) presented a bill of exceptions to his successor, Judge Grant T. Trent, for allowance and signature. Judge Trent refused to sign the bill, taking the position that he had no authority to do so because he was not the judge who originally presided over the trial. The defendant then initiated proceedings under Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compel the judge’s action.

ISSUE:
Whether a judge who did not preside over a trial has the authority to sign and allow a bill of exceptions for that case.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Code of Civil Procedure, the signature of the judge who tried the case is not an absolutely indispensable requirement for a valid bill of exceptions. The Court interpreted the relevant statutes, particularly considering Section 499, which grants the Supreme Court the power to settle a bill of exceptions even against the statements of the trial judge. This power implies that the legislature did not intend to make the trial judge’s signature irreplaceable, as circumstances like death or absence could otherwise deprive a party of the right to appeal through no fault of their own. The Court held that the judge presiding at the time the bill is tendered is competent to sign it, especially when the evidence of the proceedings (such as stenographic notes) is available. To hold otherwise would unjustly deny appellate review or force unnecessary new trials. The Court therefore directed Judge Trent to sign and allow a bill of exceptions after ensuring it conforms to the facts as shown by the stenographer’s notes or other evidence.