Case Digest (G.R. No. 1802)
Facts:
Juan Poizat et al. v. John C. Sweeney, G.R. No. 1802. August 12, 1905, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners were the plaintiffs below, and John C. Sweeney was the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and the respondent in the mandamus proceeding.
This case arose from a judgment rendered in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila by Judge A. S. Crossfield on October 3, 1903. According to the bill of exceptions presented by the petitioners, notice of that decision was given on October 20, 1903; on October 27, 1903, the petitioners excepted to the decision and filed a motion for a new trial, which they placed in the hands of the court clerk and caused copies to be served on opposing counsel.
The bill of exceptions remained with the clerk until January 12, 1904, when it was presented for certification to Judge Sweeney. Judge Sweeney refused to sign the bill of exceptions and stated on the record that the case had been tried and decided by Judge Crossfield, that notice of the judgment had been served on October 20, 1903, and that an entire term of court had intervened between rendition of judgment and the moving of the motion. He also noted there was no motion of record, no evidence transcribed as part of the record, and that he had not tried the case and therefore could not know the evidence or form an opinion as to the correctness of the judgment; on account of lapse of time, apparent laches, and want of knowledge, he overruled the motion.
The petitioners then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the Supreme Court to compel Judge Sweeney to sign the bill of exceptions. The Supreme Court considered prior decisions that had held (1) presentation of exceptions and a motion for new trial to the clerk may be equivalent to presenting them to the judge and that the clerk must call such matters to the court's attention (citing Garcia v. Ambler and Sweeney), and (2) bills of exceptions may, in some circumstances, be certified by a judge other than the trial judge (citing Enriquez v. Watson and Ricamora v. Trent). The Court, however, found those precedents distinguishable because in the cited cases the trial judge was either dead or absent from the district, making it impossible to present the bill to him.
Because Judge Cross...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should a writ of mandamus issue to compel a trial judge (or another judge) to sign a bill of exceptions presented for certification?
- May a bill of exceptions be certified by a judge other than the trial judge when the trial judge is still acting and within the district wher...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)