G.R. No. 2388. August 02, 1905

This is a motion to dismiss a bill of exceptions and to have the judgment appealed from declared final.

The bill in question was presented on the 4th day of April, 1904,
and Judge John C. Sweeney on the 25th of July of the same year refused
to approve it. To this order, notice of which was given to the parties
on the same day, the appellant took no exception, but about a month
later, to wit, on the 27th day of August, 1904, he presented a motion
to the court asking that the said order be set aside, and that his bill
of exceptions be approved. This motion was argued before Judge A.S.
Crossfield, who granted the same and approved said bill of exceptions,
with the amendments suggested by the said appellee on the 10th day of
September, 1904, and to the order of the court granting said motion an
exception was taken on the 14th of the same month, by the appellees.

The presentation and settlement of a bill of exceptions is an
important proceeding in the prosecution of ordinary actions; upon its
allowance or disallowance depends whether a case shall, or shall not be
reviewed on appeal. This will suffice to give an idea of the importance
attaching to the orders that a court may make in regard thereto. They
are not orders merely discretionary with the judge, which do not
dispose finally of a particular question during the course of a
proceeding, but on the contrary their effect may be such as to cause
irreparable injury to litigants. The Code of Civil Procedure contains
express provisions governing the subject.

There is nothing in those provisions that authorizes a Court of
First Instance to approve a bill of exceptions which another judge of
the same court has refused to allow, thus rendering void any order
which the latter might have made. Nor would it be easy to harmonize
such anomalous procedure with the far-reaching importance of those
provisions relating to bills of exceptions. Section 499 of the Code of
Civil Procedure provides a means for compelling the court below to sign
and certify a bill of exceptions in case it refuses to do so without
any legal reason, and it expressly authorizes the aggrieved party to
present a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus against
such judge.

We are of opinion that this is the remedy that the appellant in this
case should have sought from the order of Judge Sweeney refusing to
allow his bill of exceptions, instead of requesting another judge,
about a month later, to set aside that order. This, we think, makes it
unnecessary to discuss the other points raised in the motion now before
us.

We accordingly dismiss the bill of exceptions and declare the
judgment appealed from final, without express provision as to the costs
of this motion. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Willard, JJ., concur.