It was not deemed wise at the outset to appoint a Filipino judge for the city of Manila, as it was feared that there would be a lack of confidence in a Filipino who had occasion to decide cases involving large sums of money in which Americans or foreigners on the one hand and Filipinos on the other were interested; but a few years after the establishment of the new judicial system Filipino judges had won such a reputation for justice and fairness as to gain the confidence of Americans and foreigners and the appointment of a Filipino judge for the court of the city of Manila did not arouse any opposition.

Filipino judges of courts of first instance seem usually to have been actuated by a desire to do full justice.  The instances in which complaints have been made against them because of partiality to party or to race are few.  Some of them have been justly criticised for tardiness in cleaning up their dockets, and it is undoubtedly true that their capacity for turning out work is on the average below that of their Americans associates.

The fact must not be forgotten that Americans are in the majority in the Supreme Court, which reviews the decisions of courts of first instance, and this undoubtedly exercises a restraining influence.  It is not possible accurately to judge what would be the actions of a body of men now subject to such control if it did not exist.  It is furthermore true that the Filipinos are more inclined to be suspicious of their own countrymen than of Americans, and there have been from time to time specific requests from them that judges in certain provinces be Americans.

Under the Spanish regime the fees paid by litigants were excessive and the use of stamped paper was compulsory.  Its value ranged from twenty-five centavos to two pesos for a folio of two sheets according to the amount involved in the suit.  Now there are fixed fees of $8 in civil suits, except in probate matters, where the fee is $12.

It was in the power of an unscrupulous litigant to make a lawsuit almost eternal.  In matters involving an amount exceeding $250 it was lawful to institute proceedings in the action whereby the decision of the main issue was suspended pending decision of the proceedings, and as a decision was appealable to the audiencia, this was often done by attorneys who had an interest in delaying the suit.  By instituting one proceeding after another a suit could be indefinitely prolonged.

Another method of securing delay was to object to the judge.  In case the judge denied the ground of the objection, a proceeding was instituted against him and the trial of the main issue was turned over to another judge; although the proceeding arising out of the objection did not suspend the trial of the main issue, when the time came to decide the latter the decision was withheld until the proceeding arising out of the objection was settled, and as this latter was one in connection with which other proceedings could be instituted which might delay the decision and consequently the decision of the main issue, there was no end to the matter.