G.R. No. L-959, November 3, 1902
JUAN ISMAEL, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL GANZON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, Manuel Ganzon, filed a motion to amend the bill of exceptions. The motion was based on two grounds. First, he claimed that a prayer included in the bill of exceptions constituted a motion for a new trial, which, if granted, would allow the Supreme Court to review the evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure. Second, he sought to amend the bill to include a certification that the sugarcane subject of the complaint originally belonged to Jose de Luna before it passed to the plaintiff, Juan Ismael. This fact was allegedly necessary to show the relevancy of certain documentary evidence (tending to prove that cane once owned by Jose de Luna was burned) which the trial court had excluded. The defendant had excepted to this exclusion. The bill of exceptions as presented did not contain this connecting fact to show the bearing of the court’s ruling. The plaintiff opposed the amendment, citing the defendant’s negligence in preparing the bill and in prosecuting the appeal.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the prayer in the bill of exceptions constituted a valid motion for a new trial that would permit a review of the evidence.
2. Whether the bill of exceptions could be amended under Article 500 of the Code of Civil Procedure to include an omitted, but necessary, allegation of fact (that the cane belonged to Jose de Luna before the plaintiff) to show the relevancy of an excluded evidence, despite the appellant’s negligence.

RULING:
1. No, the prayer did not constitute a motion for a new trial. The Court held that the prayer embedded in the bill of exceptions was treated by neither the parties nor the trial judge as a formal motion for a new trial under the Code. The judge made no order granting or denying it. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to have the evidence brought up for review on that basis.
2. Yes, the amendment could be allowed under Article 500, but on terms. The Court construed the word “record” in the last clause of Article 500 broadly to include all proceedings in the trial court, not just the pleadings and judgment. This allowed for the correction of imperfections in the bill of exceptions by reference to what transpired during trial. While the Court acknowledged negligence and delay on the part of the appellant, it found no showing of prejudice to the appellee that could not be remedied. The Court, exercising its discretion to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice, granted the motion to amend conditionally. The appellant was given leave to move the trial judge to add the required factual statement to the bill. The order was conditioned on the appellant paying the appellee ten dollars U.S. currency as costs and adhering to a strict briefing schedule.

Separate Opinion:
Justice Cooper dissented. He argued that the application for amendment was insufficient as it failed to allege mistake, inadvertence, or excusable negligence. He emphasized the appellant’s flagrant violations of procedural rules and statutes, including the late filing of the bill of exceptions and non-compliance with Supreme Court rules. In his view, granting the amendment under these circumstances exercised arbitrary discretion, subverted the law, and set a dangerous precedent.