Case Name: Marrero v. López et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1909-12-16
Citations: 15 P.R. 746
Docket Number: No. 429
Parties: Marrero v. López et al.
Judges: Bt Mr. Justice Wole, Mr. Justice Pigueras concurring.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 746–756

Head Matter:
Marrero v. López et al.
Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 429.
Decided December 16, 1909.
Bt Mr. Justice Wole, Mr. Justice Pigueras concurring.
Review of the Facts — Statement of the Case ok Bill of Exceptions Required. — The only way in which the facts of a trial may be reviewed is by a bill of exceptions or statement of the case.
Findings of Fact — No Duty Imposed Upon Judge.' — The only reference to findings of fact is in section 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure and no duty is imposed upon the judge to make such findings.
Id. — In States Where Required. — In States where findings of fact are required, it is the duty of the judge to state separately the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Id. — When Considered as Substitute for Bill of Exceptions or Statement of the Case. — Before findings of fact can be considered as a substitute for1 or equivalent to the bill of exceptions or statement of the case, the record must show that the court below so intended and the parties so understood, otherwise an appellee might be deprived of his right to have all facts reviewed.
Record — Opinion of the Court. — The opinion of the court forms no real part, of the record.
By Me. Justice MacLeaey, Chiee Justice Heehandez concurring.
Opinion of the Court Serves as Pindings of Pact and Conclusions of Law.— The opinion of the court being signed by the judge and filed in the record may be taken as findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Homicide Committed by Overseer — Responsability of Principal. — Where an ■overseer in making the rounds of the property under his custody asks a boy for a drink of water and the latter declines and is struck by the former, and when running away is shot by the overseer, such an act not being within the scope of the overseer’s duties, and not in the line of his employer’s business, and beyond the scope of his authority, does not bind the principal.
Id. — In such case defendant cannot be held for the tortuous act of his eodefendant in slaying the retreating lad, no matter what the provocation.
The facts are stated in the two opinions.
Messrs. Manuel F. Bossy and Roberto H. Todd for appellant.
Messrs. Juan Hernández López and José L. Pesquera for respondent.

Opinion:
OPIHIOH OP
ME. JUSTICE WOLP.
The appellee in this case alleges in his brief that this court cannot enter into a consideration of the errors alleged by the appellant because the facts on which the court below based its judgment have not come before us by virtue of a statement of the case. Not only is this- true, but there is nothing in the record beyond the opinion of the court below which would enable ns to examine whether the complainant and appellant made out a case there. It is urged by him, however, that we may regard the opinion of the court below as containing "findings of fact." The only way which is expressly given us to-review a judgment, as such, is by a bill of exceptions. Nevertheless, we have recognized the right of an appellant to bring up his facts by a statement of the case as in the case of a bill of exceptions, due notice of the intention to submit for approval to the judge of the court below is required to be given. (Secs. 216 to 219, 223 to 226 of the Code of Civil Procedure.)
The only reference to "findings of the court" in the Code of Civil Procedure is contained in section 233 of that Code. In Porto Rico the duty to prepare findings of fact is not imposed upon the judge of the district court. It is undoubtedly true that such is the practice in various States and notably in the States of California, Idaho and Montana. (See sec. 632 to 637, Code of Civil Procedure of California; sec. 3483 to 3485, Code of Civil Procedure of Idaho; sec. 1111 to 1117, Code of Civil Procedure of Montana.) In these states, however, when the trial judge must, or may, try question of fact it is the duty of the court to state separately findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is probable that if a case should be presented to us in which it was the obvious intention of the trial court, and so understood by the parties, to make findings of fact that we should regard the opinion so presented and signed by the judge as the equivalent of a statement of the case or of a bill of exceptions; but we see no evidence in this appeal that there was any such intention on the part of the court below. Where the practice of making findings of fact exists the parties are given an opportunity before judgment to ask for special findings in the same manner as they might ask the court to instruct a jury. Then the parties know that the court intends to make its judgment in that form. If a' mere opinion could serve to certify the facts of a court below it might easily happen that the trial court basing its judgment on one state of facts, and the appellee relying on other defenses, a case might be reversed without the other defences relied upon by the ap-pellee, ever passing in review before the appellate court. The opinion of the courts below, as such, forms no part of the record. This is one of the essencial points decided by this court in the case of José Hernández y Rios v. Juana García Rivera, 10 P. R. Rep., 322. To this same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Pennsylvania Co. v. Albert Versten, 15 L. R. A., 798, and note. There being nothing in the record for us to review, I think the judgment should be affirmed.