G.R. No. L-5688 / March 22, 1911
HENRY BLUM, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO BARRETTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Henry Blum, obtained a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant, Mariano Barretto, for the sum of P3,500 with interest and costs. The defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence and that the decision was contrary to law. The motion was denied, and the defendant appealed. The bill of exceptions stated that the oral evidence and exhibits presented at the trial were made an integral part of the record on appeal. However, the clerk of the trial court failed to transmit the oral evidence (stenographic notes) to the Supreme Court because the appellant had not obtained and presented them for transmission despite repeated demands.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can decide the appeal on the merits given that the appellant, through his own negligence, failed to cause the transmission of the complete evidence (specifically the oral testimony) to the appellate court.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court cannot proceed to a final decision on the merits under the circumstances. The Court held that while its usual practice, when faced with an incomplete record due to the appellant’s negligence, is to disregard the transmitted evidence and base its review only on the pleadings and the facts stated in the trial court’s opinion (and affirm the judgment if those support it), it found that doing so in this particular case might result in a grave injustice. The exhibits in the record suggested the judgment might need to be set aside or materially reduced if the oral evidence were considered. Therefore, the Court exercised its discretionary power in the interest of justice. It conditionally affirmed the trial court’s judgment based on the pleadings and the opinion, but gave the appellant an opportunity to explain his failure and to complete the record by submitting a certified copy of all oral evidence within sixty days. Failure to comply would result in the judgment becoming final. The decision was held in abeyance for sixty days from the appellant’s receipt of notice to allow compliance.