G.R. No. L-2651
FACTS:
Macario Castro (plaintiff-appellant) filed a proceeding under Section 499 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions after the trial judge refused to sign his bill of exceptions. The judgment was rendered on February 15, 1905, in favor of Carmen Castro (defendant-appellee). The judge’s return stated that plaintiff’s counsel verbally excepted to the judgment and verbally announced his intention to present a bill of exceptions on the same day. The court, however, held that the verbal announcement was not made within ten days after the exception was taken, implying non-compliance. The court also appeared to have been misled by a circular regarding Act No. 1123 in its refusal.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial judge’s reasons for refusing to sign the bill of exceptions are valid.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court held the reasons insufficient and ordered the issuance of the appropriate order under Section 499. The Court ruled that: (1) a verbal exception to a judgment and a verbal announcement of intention to present a bill of exceptions are sufficient, as no law requires them to be in writing; (2) the announcement need not be made within ten days, but only “as soon as practicable”; and (3) Act No. 1123 did not alter the method of preparing bills of exceptions in Courts of First Instanceit only changed the procedure after the bill is signed (requiring the original, not a copy, to be sent to the Supreme Court) and dispensed with the printing of evidence. The bill of exceptions presented was in proper form.