G.R. Nos. 1561 and 1562 : February 2, 1904
RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. A. S. WATSON & CO., ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The plaintiff-appellee, Rafael Enriquez, moved to dismiss the bills of exceptions filed by the defendants-appellants, A. S. Watson & Co., et al., in two consolidated cases. The grounds for dismissal were: (1) the bills were not completed and certified in the form prescribed by law, and (2) they were not completed, certified, nor signed by the judge who originally tried the cases. The trial judge rendered judgment on May 2, 1903, and then left the jurisdiction for several months, beyond the period for perfecting an appeal. On May 4, 1903, the appellants took their exception to the judgment before another judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge John C. Sweeney, who also later denied their motion for a new trial. The appellants subsequently presented their bill of exceptions to yet another judge, Judge Crossfield, for certification. On July 8, 1903, Judge Crossfield approved and signed the bill, noting he did so due to the trial judge’s absence, after comparing it with the official stenographic notes of the trial testimony and finding it correct.

ISSUE:
Who has the authority to sign and certify a bill of exceptions? Specifically, may a judge other than the one who presided over the trial validly certify the bill of exceptions when the trial judge is absent?

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the motions to dismiss the bills of exceptions. It held that a judge other than the trial judge may validly certify a bill of exceptions under the circumstances. The Court reasoned that the primary purpose of a bill of exceptions is to present an authentic record of the proceedings and exceptions to the appellate court. While Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure outlines the procedure, the law did not intend to require the trial judge to perform all acts in a case from start to finish, especially given provisions for the substitution of judges. The Court noted that with the use of official stenographers, a complete and authentic record of the trial exists, which any judge can review to verify the accuracy of a bill of exceptions. To hold otherwise and insist on the trial judge’s signature in cases of absence, resignation, or similar circumstances would force parties into unnecessary new trials, causing injustice and expense, and could deprive a party of their right to appeal through no fault of their own. Since Judge Crossfield certified the bill after verifying it against the stenographic notes, the certification was sufficient.