FACTS:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, which awarded certain hemp lands to Eufemia Loreto (plaintiff-appellee) against Julio Herrera (defendant-appellant). During the trial, the judge refused to adjourn the proceedings despite a written stipulation by both parties, citing that the defendant had not brought his witnesses while the plaintiff’s were present. Although the judge’s refusal was deemed an error, it was not excepted to by the appellant. The trial proceeded, and the defendant presented documentary evidence. However, the oral testimony was not properly transmitted to the Supreme Court; the notes were in pencil handwriting, not typewritten, and not certified, rendering the record on appeal defective.

ISSUE:

1. Did the trial judge err in refusing to adjourn the trial in compliance with a written stipulation between the parties?
2. Can the Supreme Court review a judgment when the oral testimony from the trial court was not properly recorded and transmitted for appeal?
3. What is the proper procedure for taking and transmitting testimony in civil cases for appeal?

RULING:

1. Yes, the trial judge erred in failing to give effect to the written agreement between the parties to adjourn the case. However, this error cannot serve as a ground for reversal because the appellant did not duly except to the judge’s refusal.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. While acknowledging the defective record due to the improper transmission of oral testimony (notes in pencil handwriting, not typewritten or certified), the Court held that the appellant bears the burden of preparing a proper bill of exceptions to bring the appeal before the Court. The Court found that the judge correctly weighed the documentary evidence presented.
3. To settle existing doubts regarding proper practice, the Supreme Court, exercising its power under Section 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, promulgated Rule 17. This rule mandates that:
In Courts of First Instance and the Court of Land Registration, upon motion of any party, the trial judge must ensure that all testimony and proceedings in a civil case are taken by an official stenographer (if available), or reduced to writing by the clerk or another competent person.
When testimony forms part of any record sent to the Supreme Court, it must be extended in typewriting and duly certified as correct.

The judgment of the lower court was therefore affirmed, with costs against the appellant.