JOSE GASTON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. THE TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

“It shall install platform scales or other modern
devices for weighing said sugar cane and shall cause it to be weighed
therein with precision, issuing to the owner or owners thereof receipts
for the weights in due form, said weighing shall always be done in the
manner that would permit the said owner or owners or their present
representatives when they wish to do so.”

They contend that under the terms of this clause, they have the
legal right to be present at the weighing of their cane either in
person or by their agents, if they desire to do so.

After a person has tilled the soil, planted and harvested his crop
and delivers it to the mill to be weighed, it is very natural that he
would want to know what his harvest will be, and that he would have a
keen and personal interest in the weight of his crop, and without even
a contract, he would have the legal right to be personally present at
the weighing of his crop, and to feel and be assured that it is
correctly weighed, and that he receives a just return for the fruits of
his labor.

The defendants concede that the plaintiffs have the legal right to
be represented at the weighing of their cane, and then cite and rely on
clause 10 of the milling contract, which is as follows:

“That he shall appoint a committee or agents elected
from the planters to fix an,d determine the extension of the lands
which each planter must cultivate, take care of and inspect, and to
watch the progress of each plantation and the means and manner of
cultivation, in order that as far as possible there should1 never be
lacking cane for the central to mill the 1,000 tons a day as agreed
upon, during the minimum period of 120 days of milling each year. And
that said committee or agents shall represent the planters in all such
cases as may be connected with the ‘Central’ and in other cases to
which reference is made in the obligations thereof.”

It appears that under the terms of this clause, and to carry out the
purpose and intent of the milling contract, an association was
organized by the planters, known as “Asociacion de Agricultores de
Talisay y Silay.” That this association adopted by-laws of its own,
pursuant to which a committee was appointed to supervise the planting
and growing of the cane and the weighing of it, which in one form or
another has been in existence since the construction of the mill and
the signing of the milling contract by the planters in the years 1920
and 1921, and that by its terms, the contract of the planters with the
milling company is for thirty years from the date of the signing. That
this committee has supervised the weighing and control of the cane, and
has devised ways and means so that the person who weighs the cane does
not have any knowledge or information as to who may be its owner. That
from about 1921 up to the times alleged in the complaint, this
committee, pursuant to the by-laws of the association, had the control
and supervision of the weighing of the cane without any complaint or
criticism. That a valid contract had been and is now in force between
the planters and the milling company as to the manner and method in
which the cane should be weighed, and that the plaintiffs being parties
to, and having adopted and approved, that contract and that method of
weighing their cane, they are legally bound by it, and have no cause
for complaint.

We realize that this is an important case not only to the planters,
but to a milling company of sugar cane. Be that as it may, with or
without a contract, the planter has the inherent right to be personally
present at the weighing of his own cane, if he desires to do so. But
in.the exercise of that right, he must not in the least interfere with
or delay the operation of the mill. That is to say, when the cane of
any planter is delivered at the mill and is ready to be weighed, he has
the legal right to be personally present at the weighing of his own
cane.

As we analyze clauses 9 and 10 of the milling contract and what was
done by the planters themselves, the legal effect of the appointment of
the committee by the planters amounted to a selection by them of their
legal representatives who have the right to act for and represent the
planters in the weighing of the cane, in the absence of the planters in
person. That is to say, if the planter does not desire to be present in
person in the weighing of his cane, he is then represented by the
committee appointed by the planters to supervise the weighing, and that
committee has the power to act for, and represent, the planter, who is
not personally present at the weighing of his own cane, and acts for,
and represents the planter, and that he is bound by its acts. In other
words, clauses 9 and 10 should be so construed as to limit the legal
right of the planter to be personally present at the weighing of his
own cane, and that otherwise he is bound by the acts of the committee.
That having approved and selected that method of being represented in
the weighing of the cane, which has been approved and adopted by the
milling company, he has no legal right to select another or different
person than the one whom he selected in the form and person of the
committee.

The judgment of the lower court is modified, and in lieu thereof,
one will be entered that each of the plaintiffs has a legal right to be
personally present at the time of the weighing of his own cane, and
that, if not personally present, they are bound by the acts of the
committee, which has the legal right to represent them in the weighing
of their cane in the event any planter is not personally present. That
the plaintiffs have no legal right to be represented by any other or
different person than the committee. Neither party to recover costs. So
ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.