GR L 4244; (September, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑4244
September 20, 1907
FACTS
1. The plaintiff, Rafael Molina y Salvador, obtained a judgment against defendant Antonio de la Riva. The judgment was affirmed and remanded for execution.
2. Upon remand, the court ordered execution against de la Riva and the sureties on the appeal bond, Somes & Spalding. The sureties were held liable under the bond.
3. The sureties appealed the execution order. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order, and the case was remanded for execution on 6 Feb 1907.
4. After the remand, the sureties filed (a) a petition under Sec. 499, C.C.P. to compel the trial court to sign a bill of exceptions covering post‑remand proceedings, and (b) a motion claiming release from liability under Art. 1852 of the Civil Code. Both motions were denied; the sureties then filed exceptions to the execution orders.
5. The sureties now seek review of those exceptions, arguing that they may introduce new factual and legal issues concerning their liability even after final judgment and execution orders had been issued.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court’s refusal to sign the bill of exceptions and its execution orders against the sureties can be questioned through new exceptions filed after the case had reached final judgment and execution, i.e., may a party raise fresh issues of fact or law post‑judgment by means of a bill of exceptions.
RULING
The Supreme Court held that:
– Once a judgment is final and an execution order issued, the proper remedy for any grievance is an original action (e.g., a petition for injunction of execution), not a bill of exceptions or a supplemental pleading.
– Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows supplemental pleadings only before final judgment; it does not permit supplemental answers or new trials after judgment.
– The sureties had already been given a full hearing on their liability; that issue is finally resolved. No further bill of exceptions may be entertained.
– Consequently, the trial court’s reasons for refusing to sign the bill of exceptions are sufficient, and the petition for mandamus is dismissed with costs.
Disposition: Petition dismissed; proceeding terminated.
Concurrence: Justices Arellano, Torres, Johnson, and Tracey.