G.R. No. 48027; June 10, 1941
EL INTESTADO DE BENITO VALDEZ Y OTRO, recurrentes, vs. VICENTE ALBERT, Juez de Primera Instancia de Masbate, y EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS, recurridos.

FACTS

The petitioners (recurrentes) sought to perfect their appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, issued in Land Registration Case No. 65 (G.L.R.O. Record No. 42235), which dismissed their application for failure to amend it as required. For this purpose, they submitted their Bill of Exceptions for approval. The Solicitor General, representing the opponent (the Director of Lands), raised objections to the Bill. The respondent Judge then ordered the petitioners to redraft it. The required amendments were: 1) to insert the negative adverb “no” between a comma and the word “priva” on line 14-a of page 110, and to include the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court in the case of Benito Valdez et al. vs. Director of Lands et al.; and 2) to eliminate paragraphs 1 to 43, inclusive, from the Bill. The Judge considered these paragraphs to be mere copies of pleadings, motions, and interlocutory orders unrelated to the order being appealed. These eliminated portions consisted of the original application that initiated the registration case, the oppositions filed, the answers to those oppositions, and the orders resolving the incidents raised therein. Believing the respondent Judge acted without authority in disapproving their original Bill of Exceptions and ordering the elimination of parts they deemed essential, the petitioners filed this mandamus proceeding as the sole means to compel the Judge to approve the Bill in its original form.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted within his authority under the Rules of Court in ordering the elimination of paragraphs 1 to 43 from the petitioners’ Bill of Exceptions.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus. The Court held that under Article 7 of Rule 41 and Article 9 of Rule 50 of the (then) New Rules of Court, a Court of First Instance may only order the correction of a Bill of Exceptions (Record on Appeal) when it is incomplete or incorrect, for the purpose of completing it or adjusting it to the true facts by inserting omitted matters or correcting errors. The court does not have the liberty to truncate the Bill by ordering the elimination of pleadings or facts that help clarify or explain the issues the appellant seeks to raise. The only parts that may be eliminated from a Bill of Exceptions are those that are impertinent, redundant, or scandalous (Article 15, Rule 15). The court should not prejudge what the parties, their lawyers, or the appellate court may say or decide on the matter. The appellant must be given the opportunity to inform the appellate court of all incidents in the trial so it can determine whether the appealed order is in accordance with law. Since mandamus is the proper remedy under Article 15 of Rule 41 to compel a judge to approve a Bill of Exceptions, and considering the petitioners had filed an amended Bill under the court’s order only to avoid losing their right to appeal while expressly reserving their objection (as shown in their “Manifestation” dated February 1, 1941), the appealed order was revoked. The respondent Judge was ordered to approve the petitioners’ Bill of Exceptions in its original form, with the sole insertion of the negative adverb “no” where the Judge had directed. No costs were awarded.