Facts:

This case involves Mariano Cu Unjieng (hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioner") who filed an original petition for writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition against Leonard S. Goddard, the Judge of First Instance of Manila, and the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (collectively referred to as "the Respondents"). The events transpired during a criminal trial, specifically criminal case No. 40649, wherein the Petitioner, along with others, faced charges of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The proceedings took place on August 9, 1933, with the Petitioner acting as a witness in his defense.

During cross-examination in court, the presiding judge posed a series of questions regarding brokers in Manila who charged significant commissions for securing loans. The interaction led to a controversial exchange, culminating in the Respondent Judge dictating a letter to the city fiscal concerning brokers charging as much as 5 percent

...

Facts:

Background and Nature of the Case

• This is an original petition for writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition filed by petitioner Mariano Cu Unjieng.
• The petition arises from actions in criminal case No. 40649, “The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng et al.” in the Court of First Instance of Manila where the petitioner was on trial for estafa through falsification of commercial documents.
• The respondent, Judge Leonard S. Goddard, presided over the criminal trial.
• The controversy involves three distinct “causes of action” which the court considers and disposes of separately.

First Cause of Action – The Letter to the City Fiscal

• During the trial on August 9, 1933, after a witness (the petitioner testifying on his behalf) was cross-examined regarding the identity of brokers charging commissions, counsel for the defendant protested the disclosure of such names.
• In response, the judge reportedly made a remark and then dictated, in open court and without interrupting the trial proceedings, a letter addressed to the city fiscal.
• The letter identified certain Manila brokers (Mr. Isaac Barza, Mr. Juan Molina, Mr. Eduardo Alcantara) for allegedly charging as much as 5% for securing loans regardless of duration.
• The purpose of the letter was to call the attention of the City Fiscal and request an investigation in the public interest.
• The petitioner later discovered that this letter was not incorporated in the certified transcript of the proceedings.
• On August 12, 1933, the petitioner filed a verified motion requesting that the transcript be corrected by including the dictated letter in its proper location.
• The Court of First Instance, on August 17, 1933, ruled that the letter was not part of the “testimony” under the meaning of section 1 of Act No. 4011 and that there was no legal obligation to include it in the record.
• The petitioner argued that the judge’s failure to insert the letter violated the mandatory requirement of section 1 of Act No. 4011.

• Second Cause of Action – Expungement of Portions of the Record

A. Incident A (Volunteer Statement Expunged)

B. Incident B (Responsive Q&A Expungement)

Third Cause of Action – Exclusion of Counsel’s Arguments from the Record

• The petitioner protested general orders given by the judge directing that court stenographers should not record the arguments of counsel.
• The allegation was that by not recording these statements, judicial powers were effectively being delegated to the stenographers, and important objections or motions might be lost from the official record.
• The petitioner further argued that such practices could prejudice the ability of an appellant to refer to the complete record on appeal.
• The respondent admitted the existence of such orders but contended that the petitioner and his counsel had acquiesced to these practices during the trial.
• It was also noted that the trial had been ongoing almost continuously since October 19, 1931, and that the voluminous record (over 21,000 pages of transcript and between 40,000 to 45,000 exhibits) rendered the petition for relief on this ground tardy.

Issue:

First Cause of Action – Inclusion of the Judge’s Letter

• Does the dictated letter to the City Fiscal, which was not a part of the witness testimony, constitute a “statement made by a judge with reference to a case” as required under section 1 of Act No. 4011?
• If so, is the trial court legally obligated to have such a letter included in the official transcript of the proceedings?

• Second Cause of Action – Expungement of Parts of the Record

A. Regarding Incident A (Voluntary Statement) B. Regarding Incident B (Responsive Answer)

Third Cause of Action – Exclusion of Counsel’s Arguments

• Does the practice of ordering stenographers not to record arguments of counsel violate the rights of a party to a full and accurate record of court proceedings?
• Is such exclusion tantamount to delegating judicial powers to the stenographers, and does it affect the appellate review process?
• Given the lengthy and voluminous nature of the record, is the petition for relief on this ground time-barred or otherwise procedurally improper?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)