G.R. No. L-5759 / March 17, 1911
WALTER E. OLSEN & CO., and HARRY THURBER, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MATSON, LORD & BELSER CO., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing the complaint on the merits after the plaintiffs presented their proofs. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed separate bills of exceptions. In their respective bills, each party stated that they were incorporating all the proofs, both oral and documentary, presented at the trial into their bills of exceptions. However, the clerk of the trial court, in transmitting the record to the Supreme Court, reported that it was impossible to include a copy of the oral testimony because the excepting party had not presented it despite repeated requests.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the case on appeal when the oral evidence presented during the trial is not included in the record transmitted to it.

RULING

No. Under the general practice and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the evidence is not before the Supreme Court due to the appellant’s failure to present it for transmission, the Court is limited to reviewing the facts as set out in the pleadings and the opinion of the trial court. If those facts support the trial court’s conclusions of law, the judgment will be affirmed. However, in this specific case, considering that the partial evidence in the form of exhibits already in the record might lead to grave injustice if the general practice were strictly followed, the Supreme Court exercised its discretionary power. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment based on the pleadings and the facts in its opinion, but gave the appellant an opportunity to explain the failure to bring all the evidence and, if a satisfactory explanation is provided, to complete the record by filing a properly certified copy of all the evidence within sixty days. Otherwise, the judgment will stand affirmed.