103 Phil. 473
[ G. R. No. L-9791. April 28, 1958 ]
FERNANDO A. FROILAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO., DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE; COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, INTERVENOR AND APPELLEE; LOURDES REYES VDA. DE CAGUIAT, COMMISSIONER AND APPELLEE.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J.:
The appellant assails the validity of the commissioner’s proceedings in the examination of the accounts in question, on the ground said proceedings were held without notice to and in the absence of the appellant and the intervenor. It is noteworthy, however, that the order of the lower court appointing the appellee as commissioner solely directed the latter to “examine the long accounts involved in the defendant’s first, second and third counterclaims alleged in its answer to the complaint in intervention of the Compañia Maritima and the amended answer to the complaint of appellant Fernando A. Froilan, dated September 4, 1954.” For such purpose, and in the absence of a judicial directive to hold hearings, the commissioner did not need the presence of the parties. Section 3, Rule 34, of the Rules of Court, speaking of the authority that may be granted to a commissioner, provides that “the order may specify or limit the powers of the commissioner, and may direct him to report only upon particular issues, to do or perform particular acts, or to receive and report evidence only and may fix the date for beginning and closing the hearings and for the filing of his report.” Under this reglementary provision, the commissioner may be required to perform only a particular task, such as the examination of records of accounts without hearings, specially when unnecessary.
The next criticism made by the appellant is that the appellee did not personally make the examination of the accounts in question and prepare the corresponding report, and that his service consisted merely of what the appellee termed “reviewing Mr. Estanislao’s work”. While personal attention was perhaps preferable or even desirable, the same is not essential or required. The paramount consideration is that the commissioner assumes full responsibility for whatever is submitted to the court.
In granting, however, appellee’s motion for reconsideration filed on December 21, 1954, and ordering the appellant and the intervenor to pay P4,670 in equal shares, without notice and hearing, the lower court acted irregularly. In view of the fact that the appellant and the intervenor had previously registered their stand tha there was no showing as to the alleged service rendered by the appellee, that the compensation sought was excessive, and that the approval and payment of the commissioner’s fees were premature, a hearing became indispensable.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby reversed and the lower court is ordered to set the incident in question for hearing. So ordered without pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista, Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Date created: October 14, 2014
Leave a Reply