G.R. No. 31680, August 14, 1929
DIONISIO SAN PABLO, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO ENAGE, Judge of First Instance of Tayabas, and SIMEON ABUSTAR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dionisio San Pablo sought a writ of mandamus to compel respondent Judge Francisco Enage to approve and certify a bill of exceptions he filed in Civil Case No. 2432. The trial court had rendered judgment on April 1, 1929, and notified San Pablo on the same day. On April 30, 1929, San Pablo took exception to the decision and announced his intention to present a bill of exceptions. He filed the bill of exceptions on May 7, 1929. The trial court, citing Layda v. Legazpi, refused to approve the bill of exceptions in an order dated May 9, 1929. San Pablo argued that his filing was timely because it was within ten days from his exception and notice of appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly refused to approve San Pablo’s bill of exceptions, thereby warranting the denial of the petition for mandamus.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The Court held that San Pablo failed to comply with the procedural requirements for perfecting an appeal. Under the rules reiterated in Behn, Meyer & Co., H. Mij. v. Antholtz, a party must either: (1) file a bill of exceptions within thirty days from notice of judgment (which serves as notice of appeal), or (2) if a motion for new trial is filed within thirty days, then except to the order denying it, give notice of intention to appeal, and file the bill of exceptions within ten days thereafter. Here, San Pablo did not file a motion for new trial within thirty days from notice of judgment (April 1 to May 1). Although he took exception and announced his intention to appeal on April 30, he filed the bill of exceptions only on May 7, which was beyond the thirty-day period from notice of judgment. Thus, the judgment had become final and executory, and the trial court correctly refused approval. Additionally, the Court noted that San Pablo failed to attach a copy of the bill of exceptions to his mandamus petition, violating Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mandamus was therefore denied.