G.R. No. L-12406; March 15, 1918
MARIANO LIM, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANSELMO SINGIAN and PAZ SOLER, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff Mariano Lim by the trial court on April 29, 1916. The defendants, Anselmo Singian and Paz Soler, were notified of the decision on May 13, 1916, and on the same day gave notice of their exception and motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial was denied on May 24, 1916. On June 2, 1916, the defendants gave written notice of their exception to the denial and of their intention to file a bill of exceptions. However, the bill of exceptions was not filed until July 12, 1916, which was beyond the ten-day period prescribed by Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ). The plaintiff objected to the allowance of the bill of exceptions on the ground that the statutory period had expired. The defendants subsequently applied for an extension of time to file the bill, supported by an affidavit from their counsel stating that the delay was due to being occupied with other matters and forgetting the deadline. The trial court, by a nunc pro tunc order dated July 26, 1916, granted the extension retroactively. The plaintiff, as appellee, renewed his objection before the Supreme Court, contending the appeal was not taken within the time allowed by law.

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain the appeal, given that the bill of exceptions was filed after the expiration of the statutory period prescribed by Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and no application for extension was made prior to the expiration of that period.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the bill of exceptions and the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court held that the ten-day period for filing a bill of exceptions under Section 143 of Act No. 190 is mandatory and jurisdictional. An extension of this period may only be granted by the trial court if the application for extension is filed before the expiration of the original ten-day period. Since the defendants filed their bill of exceptions over a month after giving notice of their intention to do so, and their application for extension was made only after the ten-day period had already lapsed, the trial court had no power to grant the extension retroactively. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court had become final and executory, and the Supreme Court lost its appellate jurisdiction over the case. The Court expressly disapproved prior inconsistent doctrines (such as in Gomez Garcia) that had created uncertainty, and affirmed that statutory time limits for perfecting appeals are intended to ensure certainty and finality in judicial proceedings.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.