GR L 15783; (October, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15783; October 29, 1919
JUAN CUENTO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. ISIDRO PAREDES, judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Twelfth Judicial District, EULALIO VITA and NAZARIO VITA, respondents.
FACTS:
In Civil Case No. 2638 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs Eulalio Vita and Nazario Vita against defendant Juan Cuento on January 22, 1919. Cuento filed a motion for a new trial on January 28, 1919, but without proof of prior notice to the adverse party. The judgment was amended on February 1, 1919, on motion of the respondents. Cuento again filed a motion for a new trial on February 9, 1919, and later notified the plaintiffs on February 24, 1919, that the motion would be heard on March 1, 1919. The motion was denied on March 1, 1919. Cuento filed his bill of exceptions on March 14, 1919. The respondent judge, however, refused to entertain the bill of exceptions and ordered its exclusion from the record, citing lack of proof that the adverse party was notified at least three days in advance of the hearing for its approval, as required under Rules 9 and 10 of the Court of First Instance. Cuento filed this petition for mandamus to compel the judge to certify the bill of exceptions.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent judge erred in refusing to certify the bill of exceptions on the ground that the petitioner failed to notify the adverse party at least three days in advance of the hearing for its approval, as required under Rules 9 and 10 of the Court of First Instance.
RULING:
The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that Rules 9 and 10 of the Court of First Instance, which require advance notice to the adverse party, are not applicable to the filing of a bill of exceptions. These rules apply only when no other provision is made by law. For bills of exceptions, Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a special procedure, whereby it is the judge, not the appellant, who must give reasonable notice to both parties to consider the allowance or correction of the bill. Therefore, the respondent judge’s reliance on Rules 9 and 10 was erroneous. The Court also noted that Cuento’s exception and bill of exceptions were filed within the prescribed periods, following the precedent in Layda vs. Legazpi (39 Phil. 83). A writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondent judge to reconsider the bill of exceptions. No costs were awarded.