Facts:

The case involves Felix Fanlo Aznar as the petitioner and W.F. Norris, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, as the respondent. The events leading to this case began with a legal dispute between Aznar and Rafael Rodriguez, which culminated in a judgment rendered on February 28, 1903, by the Court of First Instance in Capiz. Aznar filed an exception to this judgment and subsequently presented a bill of exceptions. The petitioner contended that his exception and bill were timely filed and should be recognized by the court. The respondent, however, argued that Aznar had not taken any exceptions during the trial, which he believed was a prerequisite for the bill of exceptions to be valid. Additionally, the respondent questioned the authority of Aznar's attorney, Don Alfredo Chicote, to represent him, suggesting that another attorney, Don Jose Gay, had intervened in the case. The lower court's ruling did not favor Aznar, leading him to seek relief from the Sup...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioner: Felix Fanlo Aznar
   • Respondent: W.F. Norris, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Capiz
   • Other Parties: Rafael Rodriguez (defendant in the original case), Attorneys Don Alfredo Chicote and Don Jose Gay (representing the petitioner), and Don Vicente Alonso (attorney-in-fact of the petitioner).

2. Procedural Background:

   • The petitioner filed a case against Rafael Rodriguez in the Court of First Instance of Capiz.
   • The court rendered a decision on February 28, 1903, which was unfavorable to the petitioner.
   • The petitioner filed an exception to the judgment and presented a bill of exceptions to challenge the decision.

3. Key Events:

   • The petitioner did not take any exceptions during the trial but filed an exception to the final decision.
   • The respondent judge argued that the exception and bill of exceptions were not filed in due time and that the petitioner’s attorney, Don Alfredo Chicote, lacked authority to represent him.
   • The respondent also contended that Don Vicente Alonso, the petitioner’s attorney-in-fact, did not except to the decision.
   • The petitioner did not file a motion for a new trial.

4. Legal Representation:

   • Don Alfredo Chicote represented the petitioner from the beginning of the case.
   • Don Jose Gay also intervened in the case, but there was no evidence that the petitioner withdrew Chicote’s authority.
   • Don Vicente Alonso refused to accept notice of the decision, stating he had no authority to represent the petitioner in the case.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Timeliness of Exception and Bill of Exceptions:

   • Under Section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an exception to the final decision, even if it is the only exception taken during the trial, is sufficient to authorize the removal of the case by bill of exceptions, provided it is filed within the prescribed period and in the proper manner.

2. Authority of Attorney:

   • An attorney who has been duly authorized to represent a client from the beginning of the case retains that authority unless explicitly withdrawn. The intervention of another attorney does not automatically imply the withdrawal of the original attorney’s authority.

3. Notice of Decision:

   • A person who refuses to accept notice of a decision, stating they lack authority to represent the party, cannot be compelled to receive such notice. The proper recipients of the notice are the attorneys representing the party.

4. Motion for New Trial:

   • A motion for a new trial is not required to present a bill of exceptions. While such a motion allows the appellate court to review the evidence, its absence limits the court’s review to questions of law based on the facts found in the judgment and those admitted in the pleadings.

5. Scope of Bill of Exceptions:

   • The bill of exceptions should include only the complaint, the answer, the decision, the exception to the decision, and the certificate of its allowance. Evidence taken at the trial cannot be included if no motion for a new trial was filed.