GR L 2963; (April, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2963
FACTS:
On September 11, 1905, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee La Compania General de Tabacos. Defendant-appellant City of Manila immediately excepted to the judgment and announced its intention to file a bill of exceptions. On September 13, 1905, the appellant filed a motion for a new trial, primarily on the ground that the judgment was contrary to law. The court denied this motion on September 19, 1905. The appellant presented its proposed bill of exceptions on September 30, 1905. After a hearing, the court ordered amendments and gave the appellant five days to submit an amended bill. The appellant complied, filing the amended bill on October 14, 1905, which the judge approved and signed on October 19, 1905. The appellee was notified of the approval on October 20, 1905, and only then, on October 21, 1905, did it file an objection to the signing of the bill of exceptions, arguing it was not presented within the time allowed by law.
ISSUE:
Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the reglementary period, thereby vesting the Supreme Court with jurisdiction to review the case.
RULING:
Yes, the bill of exceptions was deemed timely filed. The Supreme Court denied the appellee’s motion to dismiss.
First, the Court held that the motion for a new trial, filed promptly after judgment and based on an error of law, legally operated as an exception to the judgment, pursuant to its ruling in De la Cruz v. Garcia.
Second, the appellee’s claim that the bill was filed out of time was without merit. Following the precedent in Garcia v. Hipolito, the Court found that the appellee had waived any objection to timeliness. The appellee was served a copy of the proposed bill on September 30, 1905, participated in the hearing on October 4, 1905, without raising any timeliness objection, and only objected after the bill had been approved and signed. Furthermore, the trial court’s order of October 9, 1905, granting five days to amend, constituted an extension of time consented to by the court. The appellant’s compliance with this order rendered the amended bill timely. Therefore, the objection raised on October 21, 1905, was made too late.