GR L 5112; (March, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5112
FRANCISCA BRETA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SMITH, BELL & CO., defendants-appellees.
March 15, 1910
FACTS:
Francisca Breta filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Albay against Smith, Bell & Co., alleging she was the owner of a building lot and a camarin and that the company unlawfully seized and retained possession of her property starting March 23, 1907. She sought restitution of possession and damages.
Smith, Bell & Co. countered that the property originally belonged to Saturnina Breta (now deceased), who mortgaged it to them. Following foreclosure, they acquired the property at a public auction on March 23, 1907. They also pointed out that Francisca Breta had previously filed a claim for a P30 lien on the property in the intestate estate proceedings of Saturnina Breta, which was admitted without appeal from Francisca Breta.
The trial court rendered judgment against Francisca Breta and dismissed her complaint. Breta moved for a new trial, arguing that the judgment was not supported by evidence and that witness testimonies were not properly taken down by the stenographer. The trial court denied the motions, noting that Breta’s counsel, Attorney Imperial, had explicitly stated in open court, in the presence of the adverse party, that it was unnecessary for the stenographer to take down the testimony of the witnesses. As a result, the oral evidence was not recorded and could not be included in the bill of exceptions for review by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Can the Supreme Court review the factual findings of the trial court on appeal when the appellant’s counsel, by agreement with the adverse party, expressly waived the right to have the witness testimonies recorded by a stenographer, thus preventing the transmittal of oral evidence to the appellate court?
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The Court held that for the Supreme Court to review the evidence offered at trial, all evidence, including oral testimonies, must be submitted on appeal, in accordance with Section 1 of Act No. 1596 (amending Section 497 of Act No. 190) and Act No. 1123 (amending Section 143 of Act No. 190). In this case, the oral evidence was not submitted because the appellant’s counsel, Attorney Imperial, in agreement with the defendant’s lawyer, expressly renounced the right to have the testimony of the witnesses taken down by the stenographer. This express waiver by the appellant’s counsel prevented the recording and subsequent transmittal of the oral evidence to the Supreme Court, making it impossible to review the factual conclusions of the trial court. Therefore, the Court was compelled to accept the reasoning and conclusions of the trial judge.