PABLO PERLAS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ALFRED EHRMAN ET AL., AS PHILIPPINE TRUSTEES DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF CALAMBA SUGAR ESTATE, AND ITS MANAGER L. WEINZHEIMER, DE…

This case has its origin in a milling contract between the
plaintiff, as producer of sugar cane, and the defendant, as a central
engaged in the milling thereof. At the hearing1 of the case, the
parties, realizing that the only question between them was one of
accounts, asked the court that it be submitted to the decision of three
referees, one appointed by each party and the third by the two members
thus chosen; that the decision of the majority be considered final and
binding upon the parties; that the case be decided by the court in
accordance with said report, and that its decision be final. The
majority of the referees submitted their report with one of them
dissenting, and the court, after further considering the evidence
presented to the referees, accepted the majority report and rendered
its decision in accordance therewith. An appeal was taken from this
decision.

In the first place, the validity of the act of the referees is
attacked because two of them did not take the oath of office before
discharging their duty. It appears that this question of the failure of
the two referees to take the oath of office was not raised until the
granting to the appellant of the period within which to present his
bill of exceptions. Furthermore, in the absence of positive evidence
that the two referees did not take the oath of office, this defect is a
mere irregularity which cannot vitiate the proceedings, inasmuch as the
parties did not raise the question before the referees proceeded with
the hearing of the case, or before the court rendered its decision, but
only during the extension of time granted to present the bill of
exceptions.

It having been agreed by the parties that the opinion of the
majority of the referees should be final and conclusive, and that the
decision of the court in view of this report should likewise, be final,
and, above all, the court’s decision having been based not only upon
said report but also upon the evidence itself adduced before said
referees, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. We find no merit
in the other assignments of error in this instance.

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.