G.R. No. 1326. April 09, 1904

Under the circumstanced of the case we consider that the exception
to the judgment rendered February 28, 1903, by the Court of First
Instance at Capiz in the case brought by the petitioner against Rafael
Rodriguez, and the bill of exceptions presented in consequence of this
exception, were presented by the petitioner in due time and should
therefore produce the legal effects. By virtue of this exception and
the presentation of the bill of exceptions, the right of the petitioner
to have the case brought before this court by bill of exceptions was
perfected.

The fact that the petitioner did not take any exceptions in the
course of the trial is no obstacle to this conclusion. Section 143 of
the Code of Civil Procedure does not establish any such requirement, as
erroneously contended by the respondent in his answer. An exception to
the final decision, although it may be the only exception taken in the
course of the trial, as in the present case, is sufficient to authorize
the removal of the case by bill of exceptions to this court, provided
that the exception is taken as in this case within the period and in
the manner prescribed by the law. The contention of the respondent upon
this point can not, therefore, be supported.

Nor can we assent to his contention with respect to the supposed
lack of capacity on the part of the attorney, Don Alfredo Chicote, to
represent the petitioner at the trial. He was the petitioner’s attorney
from the beginning, as appears from the complaint signed by him, and it
does not appear that the plaintiff has withdrawn from Señor Chicote his
authority to continue to represent him in the case. The intervention in
the case of the attorney, Don Jose Gay, does not in itself necessarily
imply such a
result, because there is nothing to indicate that he did not act with
Mr. Chicote by delegation from him, as was stated at the hearing. At
all events the utmost that could be said, even giving the utmost
possible scope to the supposition of the respondent, would be that the
plaintiff re-employed Señor Chicote after having employed Mr. Gay, and
this the petitioner was certainly fully entitled to do under the law.
Upon this supposition there would be no ground for questioning Mr.
Chicote’s authority.

Nor is there any merit in the contention of the respondent that Don
Vicente Alonso did not except to the decision. An attempt was made to
serve notice of the decision upon this person and he refused to accept
the notice, stating that although he was an attorney in fact of Don
Felix Fanlo, he believed he had no authority to represent him in the
case, as Señor Fanlo’s lawyers were those who represented him, and that
any notice to be given should be given to them. From this answer it
clearly appears that Don Vicente Alonso, although he had a power of
attorney from the petitioner, had not appeared for him and did not
desire to appear in the trial. This being so, it is obvious that he
could not be obliged to receive a notification against his will, nor
was he the person called upon to except to the judgment, notice of
which it was improperly attempted
to serve upon him.

It is not necessary to make a motion for a new trial in order to be
entitled to present a bill of exceptions, as the respondent contends in
his answer. The error of such a theory is self-evident. The motion for
a new trial produces the effect of giving this court authority to
review the evidence taken at the trial, but is not a requisite
necessary to the allowance of the bill of exceptions presented in due
time. In the latter case, that is to say, in case no such motion has
been made, the jurisdiction of the court is limited solely to
determining the questions of law presented in the bill of exceptions,
upon the basis of the facts found in the judgment of the trial court
and those admitted in the pleadings. (Sec. 497, Code of Civil
Procedure.)

In the present case the petitioner made no motion for a new trial,
and consequently is not entitled to include in his bill of exceptions
the evidence taken at the trial, either oral or documentary. The court
could not review them, as has been stated, and therefore it would be
entirely useless to bring them here.

Consequently the projected bill of exceptions presented by the
petitioner is modified so as to include only the following papers: (1)
The complaint filed by the plaintiff against Rafael Rodriguez, pages 1
to 4 of the bill of exceptions; (2) the answer of Rafael Rodriguez,
pages 4 to 7 of the bill of exceptions; (3) the decision of the court,
on pages 12 to 16 of the bill; and (4) the exception to the decision as
expressed on page 16 of the bill, and the certificate of its allowance.
No part of the evidence taken at the trial can be included in the bill
of exceptions.

It is ordered that the bill of exceptions so modified be certified in due form by the respondent judge.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Cooper, McDonough, and Johnson, JJ., concur.