[ G.R. No. 1005. August 26, 1902 ] 1 Phil. 334
[ G.R. No. 1005. August 26, 1902 ]
JOSE V. L. GONZAGA, PETITIONER, VS. W. F. NORRIS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
LADD, J.:
The petition sets forth, in substance, that at the trial of the main action in the court below certain material evidence offered by the petitioner was excluded; that he excepted to the exclusion thereof and duly tendered a bill of exceptions to the judge; that the judge refused to sign such bill of exceptions or to restate the facts and exceptions embraced therein, but directed the opposing counsel to prepare a bill; and that without notice to the petitioner the judge signed and certified the bill so prepared, which was thereupon transmitted to this court as the bill of exceptions of the petitioner. The prayer of the petition is that the printing of this bill of exceptions be suspended and that a mandamus issue to the judge directing him to transmit to this court the entire record, together with the bill tendered by the petitioner, and for such relief as may be deemed equitable.
Construing the petition liberally, as we are bound to do (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 2), we think it is evident that the object is to obtain relief against the action of the judge in refusing to sign the petitioner’s bill of exceptions, under the provisions of section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section provides that where “from any cause the bill of exceptions is not certified by the judge of the court below, without fault of the party tendering the bill of exceptions,” a mandamus may issue from this court upon petition “requiring him forthwith to make return of his reasons for not certifying the bill of exceptions” and for a hearing upon the judge’s return, at which other testimony than the return may, in the discretion of the court, be received “in determining the validity of the reasons given by the judge for his failure or refusal to sign the bill of exceptions.” If the reasons given in the return are insufficient or no return is made, an absolute mandamus is to issue commanding the judge to sign and certify “the bill of exceptions as set forth in the petition or as modified by the Supreme Court”
We think the remedy provided in this section applies not only to cases where the judge has declined to take action on the bill of exceptions tendered by the party or has refused to certify,such bill without substituting another in its place, but also to cases where he has certified a bill of exceptions but has refused to embody therein some or all of the exceptions embraced in the bill tendered him, and which the party claims to have been properly taken. The language of the Code does not expressly limit the remedy to cases where no bill of exceptions has been signed, but on the contrary it is to be available whenever “from any cause the bill of exceptions is not certified * * * without fault of the party tendering the bill of exceptions,” the implication clearly being that it may be invoked whenever the specific bill of exceptions tendered by the party is improperly disallowed, either as a whole or in any material part.
Some inconvenience may result .from permitting parties to establish the truth of exceptions in this court, but a like procedure prevails under statutes more or less similar to the provisions in question in several of the United States (3 Enc. of PI. and Pr.j 493), and the framers of the Code may well have considered that it was necessary or expedient to grant such relief to parties who should claim that they had been deprived of their right to bring their cases to this court for decision by erroneous or arbitrary and unauthorized action on the part of the trial judge.
It is difficult to see why any distinction should be made between a case in which no bill of exceptions whatever has been certified and one in which the bill of exceptions certified does not conform to the truth of the facts. A trial judge may as effectually destroy a party’s right to have an adverse judgment reviewed in the appellate court by refusing to embody in the bill of exceptions as signed a single exception of vital importance to the party’s case, as by refusing to sign any bill of exceptions whatever.
The petition is denied as respects the suspension of the printing of the bill of exceptions transmitted to this court, the printing being already so nearly completed as to render such suspension impracticable. Upon the filing by the petitioner of a copy of the bill of exceptions presented to the judge a mandamus will issue to the latter directing him forthwith to make return of his reasons for not certifying the same. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, and Willard, JJ., concur.
Mapa, J., did not sit in this case.