GR L 16270; (August, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16270; August 17, 1920
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. PEDRO AGUAS, ET AL., objectors. LADISLAO DAYRIT, objector-appellee. GONZALO MANALASTAS AND BROTHERS, objectors-appellants.
FACTS:
This case involves a land registration proceeding. The appellants, Gonzalo Manalastas and Brothers, appealed from a decision of the trial court. However, the transcript of the stenographic notes of the testimony taken in the trial court was not included in the bill of exceptions transmitted to the Supreme Court, as required by law. The appellants filed their brief discussing the evidence without notifying the Court of this omission or moving to correct it. The appellee, in his brief, prayed that the Court disregard the appellants’ contentions based on factual findings and adjudicate the case solely on the pleadings and judgment. Subsequently, the appellants filed a motion requesting the Court to issue orders to bring up the missing evidence so the case could be decided on its merits.
ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the appellants’ motion to complete the record by ordering the transmission of the missing transcript of testimony, and if so, under what conditions.
RULING:
The Supreme Court granted the appellants’ motion but imposed conditions to protect the appellee’s rights. The Court held that under Section 501 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it may order the completion of an incomplete record in the interest of justice. While the initial failure to transmit the evidence was not attributable to the appellants’ culpable negligence, their delay in discovering and moving to correct the omission after the record was filed constituted negligence. This delay caused the appellee to incur expenses in filing a brief without the evidence being available. To remedy this, the Court conditioned the issuance of the order to perfect the record upon the appellants depositing, within five days, the sum of ₱24 (equivalent to the registration fee for appealed cases) plus an amount equal to the printing costs of the appellee’s brief, to be turned over to the appellee. If the deposit is made, the appropriate orders will issue to complete the record. If not, the motion will be denied and the case will be adjudicated based on the existing record.