G.R. No. L-26591, October 25, 1926
BENIGNO MADALANG, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ROMBLON and ANDRES MALBAS, respondents.

FACTS

Benigno Madalang was the defendant in Civil Case No. 438 for recovery of possession, appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Romblon. The CFI ruled against him. Madalang filed a motion for a new trial, alleging the decision was contrary to law and evidence. While this motion was pending, a fire destroyed the entire record of the case, including evidence and stenographic notes. Pursuant to Act No. 3110 , the plaintiff, Andres Malbas, petitioned for reconstruction of the record. The CFI ordered reconstruction and, due to the loss of oral evidence, ordered a new trial for the presentation of witness testimony. During the new trial, after presenting the same witnesses from the original trial, Madalang attempted to present additional witnesses. Malbas objected, and the CFI sustained the objection. Madalang then filed this mandamus proceeding to compel the CFI to allow him to present additional witnesses.

ISSUE

In a new trial ordered for the reconstruction of a record under Act No. 3110 , where the original decision was reconstructed from an authentic copy and a motion for new trial (on grounds of being contrary to law and evidence) was pending at the time of the record’s destruction, may the defeated party present additional oral evidence not introduced in the original trial?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus.

The Court interpreted Sections 6 and 7 of Act No. 3110 . Section 7 provides that if a civil case has already been decided, the decision shall be reconstituted by means of an authentic copy. Only if no authentic copy exists may the court render a new decision as if the case had never been decided. Here, the original decision was successfully reconstituted using an authentic copy.

Section 6 provides that testimony of witnesses shall be reconstituted by an authentic copy or a new transcript of stenographic notes. If these are destroyed, the case shall be tried *de novo* as if called for trial for the first time. The Court held that the term “reconstitute” and the law’s spirit indicate that the purpose of taking testimony again is to reproduce the original evidence for review, not to allow new evidence. Since the original decision was reconstituted and the pending motion for new trial was based solely on the ground that the decision was contrary to the law and weight of the *existing* evidence, the new trial was only for the purpose of reconstructing the original record. Allowing additional witnesses would exceed the scope of reconstruction and the relief sought in the motion for new trial. The CFI did not violate any ministerial duty nor abuse its discretion in disallowing additional witnesses.

The petition was dismissed, with costs against Madalang.