GR 1802; (August, 1905) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1802 : August 12, 1905
PARTIES:
Petitioners: Juan Poizat, et al.
Respondent: Hon. John C. Sweeney, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
FACTS:
1. The petitioners were the losing defendants in a civil case (Civil Case No. 1036) before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
2. The decision against them was rendered by Judge A. S. Crossfield on October 3, 1903, and notice was served on October 20, 1903.
3. On October 27, 1903, the petitioners filed their exception to the decision and a motion for a new trial with the clerk of court. These pleadings were served on the opposing counsel but were not called to the attention of the court by the clerk.
4. The motion for a new trial remained dormant until it was finally called up on January 12, 1904, before Judge John C. Sweeney (who was not the trial judge). Judge Sweeney denied the motion, citing the lapse of time, the intervening court term, the lack of a transcribed record of evidence, and his own lack of knowledge of the case as he did not try it.
5. The petitioners subsequently presented a bill of exceptions for certification to Judge Sweeney. Judge Sweeney refused to sign it.
6. The petitioners then filed this original action for a writ of mandamus before the Supreme Court to compel Judge Sweeney to sign and certify the bill of exceptions.
ISSUE:
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel Judge John C. Sweeney to sign and certify the bill of exceptions presented to him by the petitioners.
RULING:
NO, the petition for mandamus is DENIED.
The Supreme Court held that the proper procedure was not followed for the certification of the bill of exceptions. The established rule is that a bill of exceptions must be presented for certification to the judge who originally tried the case, provided that judge is still acting and is within the judicial district.
In this case, the original trial judge, Judge A. S. Crossfield, was still a judge of the same court and present in the district at the time the bill was presented to Judge Sweeney. The exceptions to this rule, as established in prior cases like Enriquez v. Watson and Ricamora v. Trent, apply only when it is impossible to present the bill to the trial judge (e.g., due to death or absence from the district).
Since Judge Crossfield was available, the petitioners’ act of presenting the bill to Judge Sweeney was improper. Therefore, Judge Sweeney correctly refused to certify it, and the Supreme Court could not compel him via mandamus to perform an act not required by law. The petition was denied with costs.