FACTS: Appellants, defendants in the case, filed a motion for a new trial after the printed bill of exceptions had been furnished to the appellee. They claimed to have discovered important evidence, some of which could not be obtained for the trial due to unforeseen causes, and other evidence discovered after the trial concluded. They asserted this new evidence would significantly modify the court’s findings in their favor. The trial in the Court of First Instance commenced in July 1903 and concluded with a judgment on February 15, 1907. Uncontradictedly, the appellants were notified to produce certain books and receipts as early as June 2, 1906, and no legal remedies were sought prior to the judgment to avoid perceived injuries. The appellants had moved these books and receipts from Pampanga to Spain.

ISSUE: Whether a new trial should be granted to allow the presentation of newly discovered evidence when the existence of such evidence was known to the appellants prior to and during the trial, and no diligent efforts were made to secure and present it.

RULING: The motion for a new trial is denied. Section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for the consideration of new and material evidence discovered before the final determination of an action on bill of exceptions, provided that it could not have been produced at the trial below by the exercise of due diligence. In this case, the appellants were aware of the existence and importance of the books and receipts, having moved them to Spain. They were also formally summoned to produce these documents and had ample time during the over three-year pendency of the case to do so. Their failure to present this evidence was attributed not to its discovery after the trial, but to their unwillingness to produce it. Therefore, the evidence was not “newly discovered” in the legal sense, nor was its absence attributable to a lack of due diligence. Furthermore, the motion failed to provide sufficient details regarding the circumstances surrounding these documents.