Case Digest (G.R. No. 1336)
Facts:
- Petitioners filed a petition for Mandamus against Judge Ignacio Villamor, who was the judge of the First Instance of Cavite.
- Petitioners sought to compel Judge Villamor to certify a bill of exceptions that included the argument of counsel for the opposing party and the evidence presented during the trial.
- The only exception taken was to the judgment.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court denied the petition for Mandamus.
- The argument of counsel should not be included in the bill of exceptions.
- If an exception to a judgment is based on the ground that there is no evidence to support the findings of fact, then the evidence should...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The purpose of a bill of exceptions is to present the necessary facts for the appellate court to review the exceptions made.
- The argument of counsel is irrelevant to this purpose and should be excluded....continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 1336)
Facts:
The case of Gabriela Alino et al. vs. Hon. Ignacio Villamor, Judge of First Instance of Cavite, was decided on May 14, 1903. The petitioners, Gabriela Alino and others, sought a writ of mandamus against the respondent, Judge Ignacio Villamor, to compel him to certify a bill of exceptions. This bill was intended to include the argument presented by the opposing counsel during the trial of the main action, as well as the evidence taken at that trial. The petitioners contended that the only exception taken during the trial was to the judgment itself. In the lower court, the judge had refused to include the argument of counsel in the bill of exceptions, asserting that such arguments were irrelevant to the purpose of the bill. The petitioners argued that the inclusion of the evidence was necessary to support their claim, but the judge maintained that since no exception was made regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, it was not required to be included.
Issue:
- Should the argument of counsel fo...