Facts:

This case, titled Gabriela Alino et al. v. Hon. Ignacio Villamor, Judge of First Instance of Cavite, was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on May 14, 1903. The petitioners, Gabriela Alino and others, sought a writ of mandamus directed at Judge Ignacio Villamor of the First Instance Court in Cavite. The petition requested that the judge certify a bill of exceptions that included the arguments presented by opposing counsel during the trial and the evidence submitted at that trial. However, it was established that the only exception taken during the original proceedings related solely to the judgment itself. The petitioners argued that the inclusion of these arguments and evidence was essential for a proper review of the decisions made at trial, but the Judge refused to include these elements

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner: Gabriela Alino et al.
• Respondent: Hon. Ignaoio Villamor, Judge of First Instance of Cavite
• Nature of the Petition:
• A petition for a writ of mandamus directed at the judge to certify a bill of exceptions.
• The petition requested that the bill of exceptions include, among other things, the argument of counsel rendered by the opposing party during the trial of the main action and the evidence presented during the trial.

Specific Details Regarding the Bill of Exceptions

• The bill of exceptions traditionally contains a record of the facts necessary for an appellate review.
• It is meant to capture the court’s rulings, orders, or judgments that are being challenged.
• In the present case, it is noted that the only exception taken by the parties was directed to the judgment itself.

Actions Taken by the Trial Judge

• The judge declined to include the argument of counsel in the record of exceptions.
• Justification by the Judge:
• The argument of counsel is considered foreign and irrelevant to the proper function of a bill of exceptions.
• The object of a bill of exceptions is to present the factual record that underlies the ruling, not to record the trial arguments.

Related Case Precedents Referenced

• Gonzaga vs. Norris (Decided December 3, 1902)
• Affirmed that counsel’s argument in trial is extraneous to the essential factual record required in a bill of exceptions.
• Prautch, Scholes & Co. vs. Dolores Hernandez (Decided February 10, 1902)
• Stated that if an exception is raised on the absence of evidence to support findings of fact, then the evidence must be included in the bill of exceptions.
• Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec (Decided September 5, 1902)
• Clarified that if no claim of insufficient evidence is made, the inclusion of evidence is not required.

Issue:

Legal Issue on the Scope of the Bill of Exceptions

• Whether a judge is obliged to include the argument of counsel in the bill of exceptions.
• Jurisprudence on whether evidence should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions when the exception is limited solely to the judgment.

Application of Precedents

• Determining if the case aligns with Gonzaga vs. Norris on excluding counsel’s argument.
• Comparing with Prautch, Scholes & Co. vs. Dolores Hernandez in terms of when evidence is needed in the exceptions record.
• Evaluating if the petitioner's claim meets the criteria set forth in Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec regarding improper inclusion of evidence.

Petition’s Argument Specifics

• The petitioners sought to compel the judge to certify a bill of exceptions that included both the argument of counsel and the evidence taken at trial.
• Whether such inclusion is warranted when the exception is raised solely on the judgment, and no allegation of lacking evidence was presented.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)