RICARDO PALMA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ETC., RESPONDENT

Petitioner in 1950 was appointed administrator of the estate of
deceased spouses Alejo S. Ong and Placida T. Ong in Special Proceedings
No. 63-R of the Court of First Instance of Davao. One of the heirs of
the estate was Novernia Ong, wife of petitioner.

In 1957,
as a result of the charge of parricide filed against petitioner in
connection with the death of his wife Novernia, petitioner was relieved
as administrator and a commissioner was appointed to revise and check
the accounts submitted by him as administrator. On September 4, 1957,
upon motion of the commissioner, respondent judge issued an order
requiring petitioner to appear before him and bring certain documents
mentioned therein, among which (1) “work sheets from which the estate’s
financial statements for the years 1950 to 1956 inclusive were
prepared”; and (2) “financial records of the gasoline station located
in the estate property which he allegedly operated in his personal
behalf in partnership with Mr. Roman Macalinao.”

As
petitioner was not able in due time to comply with the aforesaid order
because at that time he was facing trial involving his life for which
reason he had difficulty in gathering all the documents, papers and
data enumerated in the order, upon motion of the commissioner,
respondent judge, on October 11, 1957, issued another order requiring
petitioner to appear on October 19 to explain why he should not be
declared in contempt for disobeying the order of the court.

On October 19, 1957, in compliance with the order of the court,
petitioner appeared and delivered to the court all the papers,
vouchers, notes, work sheets and other papers mentioned in the order
stating under oath that they were the only papers he had in his
possession, but not satisfied with the action of petitioner respondent
judge issued another order on November 23, 1957 directing him to
deliver within 10 days (1) “the complete and original worksheets and
supporting papers from which he prepared his financial statements of
accounts for the years 1950 to 1956” and (2) “to present documentary
proofs that the capital invested in the operation of the gasoline
station located on the property of the estate was a personal investment
of the late Mrs. Novernia Ong Palma and by credits obtained by him in
his personal capacity; should he be not able to present such
documentary proofs, the ex-administrator is ordered to deliver to the
Court the financial reports of the said gasoline station.” Petitioner
was warned that should he fail to comply with the order the court will
order his arrest and confinement.

On December 7, 1957, in
compliance with the last order, petitioner presented to the court two
sets of documents, namely: (1) “worksheets consisting of 7 pages which
have been marked Exhibits A to A-6”, and (2) “duplicate copies of the
Sales Agreement between the Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd., and
the petitioner, marked as Exhibit B.” But notwithstanding the
presentation of the above documents, respondent judge issued on January
2, 1958 another order the dispositive part of which reads:

“Wherefore,
the Court finding the motion for suspension of the Orders of Arrest not
well taken, hereby orders the issuance of an alias warrant of arrest
against the ex-administrator Ricardo C. Palma and his confinement in
the Provincial Jail until he is ready to deliver to this Court (1) the
complete and original work sheets and supporting papers to his
adjustments attached therein from which he prepared his final statement
of accounts for the years 1950 to 1956 and (2) the complete financial
records of the gasoline station which he claims to have operated as his
personal business.”

His motion for
reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed the present
petition for certiorari in which he claimed that respondent judge has
acted in excess of his jurisdiction and prayed that he be temporarily
enjoined pending the disposition of this case on the merits. The
petition was given due course, requiring respondent to answer the same
within 10 days, and granting the prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction upon a bond of P500.00. Respondent, however, failed to
answer the petition.

It is admitted that when petitioner was
required by the court to appear and deliver certain documents needed by
the commissioner in charge of revising his accounts as administrator,
he in effect delivered the following: (1) worksheets composed of seven
pages marked as Exhibits A to A-6, and (2) the duplicate copy of the
sales agreement executed between the Shell Company of the Philippines,
Ltd. and petitioner, marked Exhibit B, but the court did not consider
said documents sufficient to meet the requirement of the commissioner
and on this matter made the following observation:

“When
the above documents were presented to this Court, the Commissioner
objected to the administrator in the preparation of his financial
statements for the years 1950 to 1956 because the original work sheets
previously shown to the Commissioner by the ex-administrator contained
check marks in red ink after the figures or amounts therein which check
marks in red ink are not evident in the worksheets marked Exhibits ‘A’,
‘A-1’, to ‘A-6’, and that in the original working papers were attached
certain documents and income records from which the ex-administrator
based some of his adjustments or adjusting entries which are not also
attached to said exhibits marked ‘A’, A-1′ to ‘A-6’.

“It
was further observed that the worksheets marked Exhibits ‘A’, ‘A-1’
to-‘A-6’ were fresh and crisp contrary to the nature of working papers
which the ex-administrator, in his own words even described as ‘Scratch
paper’. The said work sheets submitted by the ex-administrator do not
show any evidence of wear and tear which would have naturally resulted
from ordinary reference and handling.

“The duplicate copy
of the Sales Agreement between the Shell Company of the Philippines
Ltd., and the ex-administrator marked as Exhibit ‘B’ is not evidence
that the capital invested in the operation of the gasoline station was
a personal investment of the late Mrs. Novernia Ong Palma and from
credits obtained by the ex-administrator in his personal capacity.”

In meeting the above observation, of the court, petitioner averred that
the worksheets marked Exhibits A to A-6 which he delivered to the court
were the original worksheets he used in making the adjustment and
preparation of his report and that having been the one who prepared
them as a certified public accountant he is in a better position to
state whether they are the original documents or not. In fact,—he
contends—he stated under oath in open court that said documents were
the original and only worksheets he had in his possession, and that the
duplicate of the sales agreement between him and the Shell Company of
the Philippines, Ltd. which was signed by him in his individual
capacity is sufficient to prove that the business relative to the
gasoline station is his own personally and its presentation is
a substantial compliance with the order of the court. But respondent
judge did not consider the above explanation satisfactory and ordered
his arrest and confinement until he submits better evidence.

Considering that the above explanation was reiterated by petitioner in
the present petition for certiorari which is under oath and respondent
has not contested the same for he has not presented any answer thereto
in spite of the requirement of this Court, we are of the opinion that
the aforesaid explanation is sufficient even if the commissioner
believes that petitioner has not delivered the precise documents
required by the court. Petitioner stated under oath before the trial
court in the presence of the commissioner that the documents he had
delivered were the original and only documents he had in his possession
to prove his accounts and there is nothing to show that such statement
has been contradicted. Even assuming that the documents delivered were
not enough to constitute the worksheets required according to the
criterion of the commissioner and are not sufficient to prove the
ownership of the gasoline station, still the trial court was not
justified in ordering the confinement of petitioner after he had sworn
that he had no other documents in his possession. The alternative would
be to disallow or disapprove the particular items or accounts which in
the opinion of the court have not been explained or clarified for lack
of evidence and make petitioner personally responsible therefor, and
not to take the drastic action of depriving him of his liberty. In any
event, the only issue presented before the court was whether petitioner
told the truth or the commissioner, which is merely a matter of
credibility the determination of which cannot result in the action
taken by the lower court. In this sense, we opine that respondent judge
has acted somewhat harshly against petitioner and as such he is
entitled to the relief prayed for.

Wherefore, petition is granted. The order of the trial court dated January 2, 1958 is hereby set aside. No costs.

Paras, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur in the result.
Bengzon, J., took no part.