G.R. No. L-3120 - FEBRUARY 1906 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3120February 28, 1906 Bryan, Landon Co. vs. American Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-2702February 28, 1906 United States vs. Isidro Olivan, et al. G.R. No. L-1489February 28, 1906 Rafael Enriquez vs. Francisco V. Enriquez G.R. No. L-2789February 27, 1906 William Johnson vs. Cirilo David G.R. No. L-2715February 27, 1906 Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. F. Rosatin G.R. No. L-2409February 27, 1906 In re: Felipe G. Calderon G.R. No. L-2618February 26, 1906 United States vs. John M. Flemister G.R. No. L-2442February 26, 1906 Greogorio Cedre, et al. vs. James C. Jenkins G.R. No. L-1752February 26, 1906 Nicasio Capule vs. Evaristo Capistrano G.R. No. L-2333February 19, 1906 Edward B. Merchant vs. Abelardo Lafuente G.R. No. L-2647February 17, 1906 United States vs. Felix Paquit G.R. No. L-2622February 17, 1906 Teodoro B. Benedicto vs. Julian Perizuelo G.R. No. L-2451February 17, 1906 United States vs. Leon Lineses G.R. No. L-2424February 17, 1906 UNited States vs. Cosme Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-2250February 17, 1906 Pedro Regalado vs. Luchsinger & Co. G.R. No. L-1409February 17, 1906 Bryan, Landon Co. vs. American Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-1311February 17, 1906 United States vs. Pedro Giron et al. G.R. No. L-2650February 16, 1906 United States vs. Pedro Tolosa G.R. No. L-1618February 14, 1906 Miguel Siojo vs. Gerardo Diaz G.R. No. L-1524February 12, 1906 United States vs. Tranquilino Herrera G.R. No. L-2437February 13, 1906 Monica Cason vs. Francisco Walterio Rickards, et al. G.R. No. L-2357February 13, 1906 Frederick Nelle vs. Baer, Senior & Co. G.R. No. L-2282February 12, 1906 United States vs. Jose Diaz Tan-Bauco G.R. No. L-2641February 10, 1906 United States vs. Domingo Macasadia, et al. G.R. No. L-2344February 10, 1906 Gonzalo Tuazon vs. Dolores Orozco G.R. No. L-2343February 10, 1906 Ildefonso Tambunting vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-2404February 8, 1906 Pedro Sison vs. Calixto Silva, et al. G.R. No. L-2243February 8, 1906 Mateo Aldeguer vs. Gregorio Aposaga, et al. G.R. No. L-2607February 2, 1906 United States vs. Fernando Nieto The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Bryan, Landon Co. vs. American Bank, et al. United States vs. Isidro Olivan, et al. Rafael Enriquez vs. Francisco V. Enriquez William Johnson vs. Cirilo David Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. F. Rosatin In re: Felipe G. Calderon United States vs. John M. Flemister Greogorio Cedre, et al. vs. James C. Jenkins Nicasio Capule vs. Evaristo Capistrano Edward B. Merchant vs. Abelardo Lafuente United States vs. Felix Paquit Teodoro B. Benedicto vs. Julian Perizuelo United States vs. Leon Lineses UNited States vs. Cosme Guzman, et al. Pedro Regalado vs. Luchsinger & Co. Bryan, Landon Co. vs. American Bank, et al. United States vs. Pedro Giron et al. United States vs. Pedro Tolosa Miguel Siojo vs. Gerardo Diaz United States vs. Tranquilino Herrera Monica Cason vs. Francisco Walterio Rickards, et al. Frederick Nelle vs. Baer, Senior & Co. United States vs. Jose Diaz Tan-Bauco United States vs. Domingo Macasadia, et al. Gonzalo Tuazon vs. Dolores Orozco Ildefonso Tambunting vs. City of Manila Pedro Sison vs. Calixto Silva, et al. Mateo Aldeguer vs. Gregorio Aposaga, et al. United States vs. Fernando Nieto The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-3120            February 28, 1906

BRYAN, LANDON CO.,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
THE AMERICAN BANK, ET AL.,defendants-appellees.

Coudert Brothers for appellant.
Attorney-General Wilfley for appellees.

WILLARD,J.:

Judgment in this case was rendered on October 28, 1905. Nothing was done by the appellant until November 18, 1905, when it presented motion for a new trial, based upon the ground "that the judgment is contrary to law and to the facts admitted and established in said action." This motion was denied on the 18th of November, 1905, and to the order denying that motion plaintiff excepted on the same day.

It was held in the case ofAntonia de la Cruz vs. Santiago Garcia,¹No. 2485, that a motion for a new trial, presented immediately after a notification of the judgment, or within a reasonable time, according to the circumstances of each case provided it is based upon errors of law committed by the judge, or upon the insufficiency of the proof, amounts to an exception to the judgment. Applying that decision to this case, it remains to be considered whether this motion for a new trial, considered as an exception, was presented forthwith, or, as that term has been defined in Fischervs. Ambler (91 Phil. Rep., 508), within a reasonable time. Twenty days elapsed between the date of the judgment and the presentation of this motion. No reason is shown why the exception could not have been taken before. In the case ofEustaquia Salcedo vs. Amanda de Marcaida de Farias²notification of the judgment was given on the 18th day of October, 1904. Nothing was done by the defeated party until the 19th day of December following, when she presented a motion for a new trial. It was held that this motion, considered as an exception to the judgment, was not presented within a reasonable time. In the case of the city ofManila vs. Feliciano Basa Marifosque,³No. 2881, decided September 26, 1905, in which no option was written, the judgment was entered on the 10th day of July, 1905, and the appellant was notified thereof on the 11th day of the same month and year. He presented a motion for a new trial on the 9th day of August, 1905. The bill of exceptions was dismissed on the ground that no exception to the judgment was taken within a reasonable time. See alsoLeonisa Iturralde vs. Albino Santos,⁴No. 3021, January 2, 1906. We hold in this case that the motion for a new trial, considered as an exception, was not presented within a reasonable time, and therefore that there is no valid exception against the judgment.

To the order denying the motion for a new trial appellant excepted at once. This motion for a new trial was not made upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision. It is only when a motion is made on this ground that the order denying it is subject to exception (Co-Yengcovs. Reyes,⁵No. 1842, Aug. 25, 1905) And it is subject to exception not by reason of the provisions of section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but by reason of the provisions of section 497, paragraph 3, of the same code. We have already held that an order denying a motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment is subject to exception, although the precise language used in section 497 is not found in the motion presented. (Agueda Benedictovs. Esteban de la Rama,⁶No. 1056, Dec. 8, 1903; 2 Off. Gaz., 166, 293.)

The motion of the defendants to dismiss the bill of exceptions in this case is granted, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, and Carson, JJ.,concur.
Johnson, J.,dissents.

Footnotes