GARCIA v.
AMBLER the approval of Judge Ambler as he was out of the city
April 22, 1904 | Torres, J. | Literal Interpretation (Departure from literal interpretation)
PETITIONER: EULOGIO GARCIA
RESPONDENTS: B.S. AMBLER and JOHN SWEENEY
SUMMARY: A civil action for damages was brought by Marker against Garcia and
judgment was rendered against Garcia by Judge Ambler, then presiding over Part
III. Garcia filed a bill of exception however he could not get the approval of Judge
Ambler as he was out of the city. Upon his return, Judge Ambler still refused as an
order of Judge Sweeney (who’s the presiding judge for Part III) for the transfer of
the case to Part I (the court he’s currently presiding) is still necessary. He instead
asked for the approval of Part III’s current presiding judge, Judge Sweeney, who also
refused as he maintained that Judge Ambler was the only one competent to approve
the bill of exceptions and that an order of transfer to Part I was not necessary. A
writ of mandamus was filed against the 2 judges and Judge Sweeney ruled that the
bill of exception (and the appeal) was filed out of time as a delivery to the clerk of
court of the bill of exceptions was not complied with as provided under Sec 143 of
the Civil Procedure (assailed provision not in the case). The SC ruled that the bill
was filed on time as the clerk received it within the time prescribed period and it is
the duty of the clerk to report to the judge having cognizance of the suit.
DOCTRINE:
With respect to the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to
cases submitted to the courts for their decision, the provisions of section 2 should
always be borne in mind, which in effect provides that in the interpretation of the
code the controlling principle is to be the spirit and purpose of the law, as
determined by reason and good sense, rather than the strict letter.
FACTS:
1. A civil action for damages was brought by Marker against Garcia (Marker v.
Garcia) and judgment was rendered against Garcia by Judge Ambler, then
presiding over Part III. Garcia filed a bill of exception however he could not get
2. Upon his return, Judge Ambler still refused as an order of Judge Sweeney
(who’s the presiding judge for Part III) for the transfer of the case to Part I (the
court he’s currently presiding) is still necessary. He instead asked for the
approval of Part III’s current presiding judge, Judge Sweeney, who also refused
as he maintained that Judge Ambler was the only one competent to approve the
bill of exceptions and that an order of transfer to Part I was not necessary.
3. A writ of mandamus was filed against the 2 judges and Judge Sweeney ruled
that the bill of exception (and the appeal) was filed out of time as a delivery to
the clerk of court of the bill of exceptions was not complied with as provided
under Sec 143 of the Civil Procedure (assailed provision not in the case).
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the bill of exceptions has been filed within the time prescribed – Yes.
RULING: SC ruled in favor of petitioner.
RATIO:
1. With respect to the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
to cases submitted to the courts for their decision, the provisions of section 2
should always be borne in mind, which in effect provides that in the
interpretation of the code the controlling principle is to be the spirit and
purpose of the law, as determined by reason and good sense, rather than the
strict letter.
2. The bill having been filed within the period prescribed by law, the provisions of
section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be complied with. It is not
permissible to refuse to permit a party to avail himself of his remedy by bill of
exceptions upon grounds not recognized in the law of procedure. The general
tendency of courts in matters of procedure is ordinarily to allow all appeals
from their judgments, for if the conviction exists that a decision is in harmony
with the pleadings, the provisions of law, and the principles of justice, it is a
matter of indifference that such decisions be reviewed upon the questions at
issue.
3. Judge Ambler should have directed the clerk to call his attention to the bill of
exceptions filed with the latter, together with the record and other antecedents
of the litigation, and no previous order from Judge Sweeney was necessary. The
fact that the case of Marker vs. Garcia was tried in Part III, in which the judge
now sitting in Part I formerly presided, is no obstacle to the allowance of the
bill of exceptions by Judge Ambler, inasmuch as Judge Sweeney makes no
opposition to his doing so, and furthermore because, as the case is pending in
the single court of Manila, the distribution of cases is not jurisdictional, and
Judge Ambler, having tried and decided the case, it devolved upon him in the
first place to certify the bill of exceptions.