35 - ornum vs. lasala

8/11/2019 35 - Ornum vs. Lasala

1/12

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-47823 July 26, 1943

JOSE ORNUM an EMERENC!"N" ORNUM,petitioners,vs.M"R!"NO, L"S"L", #$ al.,respondent.

Marcelino Lontok for petitioners.Duran, Lim and Bausa and Augusto Francisco for respondents.

P"R"S, J.%

The following facts are practicall ad!itted in the pleadings and briefs of the parties" The respondents

#plaintiffs below$ are natives of Taal, Batangas, and resided therein or in Manila. The petitioners#defendants below$ are also natives of Taal, but resided in the barrio of Tan%agan, !unicipalit of Tablas,Province of Ro!blon. &n '()* Pedro +asala, father of the respondents, and E!erenciano rnu! for!eda partnership, whereb the for!er, as capitalist, delivered the su! of P',))) to the latter who, asindustrial partner, was to conduct a business at his place of residence in Ro!blon. &n '('-, when theassets of the partnership consisted of outstanding accounts and old stoc of !erchandise, E!erencianornu!, following the wishes of his wife, ased for the dissolution of the +asala, E!erenciano rnu!looed for so!e one who could tae his place and he suggested the na!es of the petitioners whoaccordingl beca!e the new partners. /pon 0oining the business, the petitioners, contributed P1)1.12 astheir capital, with the result that in the new partnership Pedro +asala had a capital of P',))), appraisedvalue of the assets of the for!er partnership, plus the said P1)1.12 invested b the petitioners who, asindustrial partners, were to run the business in Ro!blon. After the death of Pedro +asala, his children #therespondents$ succeeded to all his rights and interest in the partnership. The partners never new eachother personall. No for!al partnership agree!ent was ever e3ecuted. The petitioners, as !anaging

partners, were received one%half of the net gains, and the other half was to be divided between the! andthe +asala group in proportion to the capital put in b each group. 4uring the course divided, but thepartners were given the election, as evidenced b the state!ents of accounts referred to in the decisionof the Court of Appeals, to invest their respective shares in such profits as additional capital. Thepetitioners accordingl let a greater part of their profits as additional invest!ent in the partnership. Aftertwent ears the business had grown to such an e3tent that is total value, including profits, a!ounted toP22,5'*.56. 7tate!ents of accounts were periodicall prepared b the petitioners and sent to therespondents who invariabl did not !ae an ob0ection thereto. Before the last state!ent of accounts was!ade, the respondents had received P1,8*6.-( b wa of profits. The last and final state!ent ofaccounts, dated Ma -6, '(8-, and prepared b the petitioners after the respondents had announcedtheir desire to dissolve the partnership, read as follows"

9anancia total desde el ulti!o balance hasta la fecha P161.21

Participacion del capital de los her!anos +asala en laganancia

P11.8(

Participacion del capital de :ose rnu! en el ganancia '-1.6(

Participacion de :ose rnu! co!o socio industrial '28.(5

Participacion del capital de E!erenciana rnu! en laganancia

')5.12

Participacion de E!erenciana rnu! co!o socia industrial '28.*5


2/12

7iendo este el balance final lo siguiente es la cantidad ;ue debe corresponder a cada socio"

Capital de los her!anos +asala segun elulti!o balance P2,8(8.)*

9anancia de este capital 11.8( P2,22*.26

Pero se debe deducir la cantidad to!ada porlos her!anos +asala ',68).))

Cantidad nota ;ue debe corresponder a losher!anos +asala P-,6'*.26

Capital de :ose rnu! segun el ulti!obalance P(,(61.'8

9anancia de este capital '-1.6(

Participacion de :ose rnu! co!o socioindustrial '28.*5 P'),-22.51

Pero se debe deducir la cantidad to!ada por:ose rnu! ',51).))

Cantidad neta ;ue debe corresponder a:ose rnu! P*,1(2.51

Capital de E!erenciana rnu! segun elulti!o balance P*,22*.))

9anancia de este capital ')5.12

Participacion de E!erenciana rnu! co!osocia industrial '28.*5 P*,5(*.2)

Pero se debe deducir la cantidad to!ada porE!erenciana rnu! ',*1).))

Cantidad neta ;ue debe corresponder aE!erenciana rnu! P5,*2*.2)

After the receipt of the foregoing state!ent of accounts,


3/12

right to a further accounting fro! the !o!ent the received and accepted their shares as ite!i>ed in saidstate!ent. This 0udg!ent was reversed b the Court of Appeals principall on the ground that as the finalstate!ent of accounts re!ains unsigned b the respondents, the sa!e stands disapproved. The decisionappealed b the petitioners thus said"

To support a plea of a stated account so as to conclude the parties in relation to all dealings

between the!, the accounting !ust be shown to have been final. #' Cc. 855.$ All the first ninestate!ents which the defendants sent the plaintiffs were partial settle!ents, while the last,although intended to be final, has not been signed.

?e hold that the last and final state!ent of accounts hereinabove ;uoted, had been approved b therespondents. This approval resulted, b virtue of the letter of vs.art, 8- Phil. 8-*.$ The Court ofAppeals did not !ae an findings that there was fraud, and on the !atter of error or !istae it !erelsaid"

The ;uestion, then is, have !istaes, been co!!itted in the state!ents sent appellants Notonl do plaintiffs so allege, and not onl does not evidence so tend to prove, but the charge isseconded b the defendants the!selves when in their counterclai!s the said"

D#a$ ue reciente!ente se ha hecho una acabada revision de las cuentas libros del negocio, ,se ha descubierto ;ue los de!andados co!etieron un error al hacer las entregas de las varias

cantidades en efectivo a los de!andantes, entregando en total !aor cantidades a la ;ue tenianderecho estos por su participacion ganancias en dicho negocio@

D#b$ ue el e3ceso entregado a los de!andantes, asciende a la su!a de ;uinientos setenta cinco pesos con doce centi!os #P161.'-$, ;ue los de!andados recla!an ahora de a;uellos sudevolucion o pago en la presente contrade!anda@D

&n our opinion, the pronounce!ent that the evidence tends to prove that there were !istaes in thepetitionersF state!ents of accounts, without specifing the !istaes, !erel inti!ates as suspicion and isnot such a positive and un!istaable finding of fact #Cf. Concepcion vs.People, 9.R. No. 2*'5(,pro!ulgated 4ece!ber -*, '(2-$ as to 0ustif a revision, especiall because the Court of Appeals hasrelied on the bare allegations of the parties, Even ad!itting that, as alleged b the petitioners in theircounterclai!, the overpaid the respondents in the su! of P161.'-, this error is essentiall fatal to the

latterFs theor what the state!ent of accounts shows, and is therefore not the ind of error that calls foranother accounting which will serve the purpose of the respondentFs suit. Moreover, as the petitioners didnot appeal fro! the decision of the Court abandoned such allegation in the Court of Appeals.

&f the li;uidation is ordered in the absence of an particular error, found as a fact, si!pl because noda!age will be suffered b the petitioners in case the latterFs final state!ent of the accounts proves to becorrect, we shall be assu!ing a funda!entall inconsistent position. &f there is not !istae, the onlreason for a new accounting disappears. The petitioners !a not be pre0udiced in the sense that the willbe re;uired to pa anthing to the respondents, but the will have to go to the trouble of ite!i>ing


4/12

accounts covering a period of twent ears !ostl fro! !e!or, its appearing that no regular boos ofaccounts were ept. 7tated !ore e!phaticall, the will be told to do what see!s to be hardl possible.?hen it is borne in !ind that this case has been pending for nearl nine ears and that, if anotheraccounting is ordered, a costl action or proceeding !a arise which !a not be disposed of within asi!ilar period, it is not i!probable that the intended relief !a in fact be the respondentsF funeral.

?e are reversing the appealed decision on the legal ground that the petitionersF final state!ent ofaccounts had been approved b the respondents and no 0ustifiable reason #fraud, deceit, error or !istae$has been positivel and un!istaabl found b the Court of Appeals so as to warrant the li;uidationssought b the respondents. &n 0ustice to the petitioners, however, we !a add that, considering that theran the business of the partnership for about twent ears at a place far fro! the residence of therespondents and without the latterFs intervention@ that the partners did not even now each otherpersonall@ that no for!al partnership agree!ent was entered into which bound the petitioners underspecific conditions@ that the petitioners could have easil and freel alleged that the business beca!epartial, or even a total, loss for an plausible reason which the could have concocted, it appearing thatthe partnership engaged in such uncertain ventures as agriculture, cattle raising and operation of rice !ill,and the petitioners did not eep an regular boos of accounts@ that the petitioners were still fran enoughto disclose that the original capital of P',1)1.12 a!ounted, as of the date of the dissolution of thepartnership, to P22,5'*.56@ and that the respondents had received a total of P*,')1.65 out of their capitalof P',))), without an effort on their part, we are reluctant even to !ae the con0ecture that thepetitioners had ever intended to, or actuall did, tae undue advantage of the absence and confidence ofthe respondents. &ndeed, we feel 0ustified in stating that the petitioners have here given a re!arablede!onstration of the legendar honest, good faith and industr with which the natives of Taal pursuebusiness arrange!ents si!ilar to the partnership in ;uestion, and we would hate, in the absence of ansufficient reason, to let such a beautiful legend have a distateful ending.

The appealed decision is hereb reversed and the petitioners #defendants below$ absolved fro! theco!plaints of the respondents #plaintiffs below$, with costs against the latter.

Yulo, C.J., and Hontiveros, J., concur.

S#&a'a$# O&(n(on)

O*"ET" J., +on+u''(n%

+et us record here the !ental processes b which & arrived at ! vote for the reversal of the 0udg!ent ofthe Court of Appeals.

After the respondents had announced their desire to withdraw fro! the Dpartnership,D the petitionersrendered a final state!ent of account dated Ma -6, '(8-, which is set forth in the opinion written b Mr.:ustice Paras and which was accepted as correct b the respondents, who the! ased fro! the pa!entto the! in cash of their participation in the capital and profits of the business as shown b said state!ent.&t !ust be borne in !ind that the assets reflected in said state!ent of account did not consist of cash butof !erchandise, credits, land, large cattle, and a rice !ill. To gratif the respondent wish the petitionersraised !one and paid respondentsF total participation. After their interest and participation in thebusiness had thus been li;uidated, the respondents, apparentl believing that the !ight be entitled to!ore !one than the had accepted and received, sought to have the boos and records e3a!ined b arepresentative of theirs. The petitioners regarded such conduct of the respondents not onl as a violationof their agree!ent to consider the DpartnershipD dissolved upon the pa!ent of respondentsF participationtherein but as an unwarranted reflections upon their honest and good faith. ence the refused to allowthe e3a!ination or proposed reli;uidation.


5/12

n Nove!ber -), '(88, the co!plaint in this case was filed b the respondents, praing for anaccounting and final li;uidation of the assets of the Dpartnership.D The trial lasted off and on fro!7epte!ber -5, '(82, to March -8, '(86, involving a transcript of *'1 pages of oral testi!on. The Courtof


6/12

;ue los de!andantes estaban confor!es con los balances presentados, incluendo el ulti!obalance del aGo de '(8-.

El :u>gado es de opinio de ;ue no procede ordenar a los de!andados ;ue presenten una nuevali;uidacion. Ade!as, segun las pruebas los de!andados no llevaban otros libros fuera de losE3hibits 7 T. Es verdad ;ue la le re;uire ;ue los de!andados lleven algunos libros, el

contador de los de!andantes declaro ;ue, por la falta de dichos libros, no ha podido verificar unbalance !as corecto, pues solo tuvo por base de la li;uidacion presentada los libros presentadosco!o e3hibits 7 T. +as deficiencias notadas las conclusiones de dicho contador no pueden,en !anera alguna, ca!biar el aspecto de la cuestion.

No e3iste prueba alguna de ;ue los de!andados llevaban otros libros. +o unico ;ue se probo es;ue segun la le, los de!andados debian haber llevado otros libros, pero no se ha probado ;ueestos en alguna ocasion haan e3istido ;ue dichos de!andados, para defraudar a losde!andantes, no han ;uerido presentar dichos libros. Ta!poco e3iste prueba alguna de ;ue, enla preparacion de los balances ;ue obran en los E3hibits 7 T, los de!andados procedieron de!ala fe, no incluendo !ercaderias o dinero para defraudar a los de!andantes. Ba0o estascircunstancias, no pode!os dar al E3hibit / de los de!andantes, ;ue se relaciona con losE3hibits 7 T, el valor ;ue pretenden los de!andantes por cuanto resultan inco!pletos los datos

sobre los cuales descansa dicho report.

Es principio general!ente reconocido ;ue la le no puede a!parar al ;ue duer!e, siendo estoasi, no acerta!os a co!prender por ;ue desde el aGo de '('8, en ;ue se presento el pri!erbalance, despues de la !uerte de Pedro +asala los sucesivos balances hasta '(-( ,ulti!a!ente, el correspondiente al aGo de '(8-, sola!ente el -) de novie!bre de '(88 se iniciala presente accion para e3igir una rendicion de cuentas a los de!andados, en esta causa. Conuna contalibidad tan deficiente, de una parte, de otra, con balances anteriores a aceptados, ,final!ente, con el recibo de cantidades resultantes del ulti!o balance de '(8- de parte de losde!andados, no ve!os ca!ino legal e3pedito para sostener la accion de los de!andantes enel presente asunto, so!os, por tanto, de opinion de ;ue los de!andados, despues depresentada su li;uidacion de '(8- entregados a los de!andantes sus saldos, segun ;uedadicho, no pueden ahora ser obligados a una rendicion de cuentas.

Por todas las consideraciones e3puestas, dclara!os ;ue no procede ordenar ;ue losde!andados rindan nuevas cuentas , en su consecuencia, se absuelve a los de!andados de lade!anda, sin especial pronuncia!iento en cuanto a las costas.

The Court of Appeals reversed that 0udg!ent and ordered the defendants Dto render an accounting of allthe assets of the partnership and of all its profits and losses fro! the ti!e of its organi>ation to the date ofplaintiffsF withdrawal.D

This is an unfortunate and unnecessar lawsuit, engendered b suspicion and !isunderstanding on thepart of the respondents and abetted b pride and amor propio on the part of their opponents. &t isunfortunate fro! two viewpoints I senti!ental and !aterial" #'$


7/12

First. The suspicions entertained b the respondents against the good faith of their erstwhile friends, thepetitioners, finds e3pression in the allegation of paragraph * of their co!plaint"

*. That the said defendants, in order to defraud and deprive the plaintiffs of their 0ust share in thebusiness have caused properties, which rightfull belong to the business of which the were andare the !anagers, to be inscribed in their own 0oint na!es or in their individual na!es, b virtue

of which said defendants now appears to be the sole and e3clusive owners of said properties andtheir fruits.

7uch suspicion is un0ustified. There is nothing irregular or i!proper in the act of the petitioners of puttingthe properties and the business in their own na!es. The association of the parties was not a generalcopartnership under articles '-1%'22 of the Code of Co!!erce but one of 0oint accounts governed barticles -8(%-28 of the sa!e Code. The respondents ac;uired an interest in the transactions of thepetitioners b contributing thereto !erchandise and accounts receivable valued at P',))) #Article -8(.$No for!alit was observed in the for!ation of the association. #Article -2).$ No co!!ercial na!e,co!!on to all the participants was adopted, and the petitioners transacted and !anaged the business intheir own individual na!es and under their individual liabilit. #Article -2'.$ The respondents had noreason to e3pect the petitioners to put the business and properties in the na!e of the DpartnershipDbecause the new that fro! the beginning no fir! na!e had been adopted for it. The respondents were

silent partners.

econd. An apparent !isunderstanding on the part of the respondents is reflected in the allegation ofparagraph ') of their co!plaint"

'). That the defendants have fraudulentl withdrawn fro! the funds of the said partnership largea!ounts of !one, which the applied for their personal use and benefit to which withdrawalsthe were not legall entitled, thereb i!pairing seriousl the capital of the partnership andha!pering its orderl and efficient ad!inistration.

7uch unind words uttered against long%trusted business associates can onl be attributed to a serious!isunderstanding in view of the fact that neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals found an indiciaof bad faith on the part of the petitioners. The aspersion was wholl unwarranted.

!"ird. The respondents have apparentl been !isled b the public accountant the e!ploed, whoadvanced a different !ethod of co!puting the participations of the parties in the profits. As noted b thetrial court in its decision and as urged b the respondents in their brief, the clai! that the petitioners, Dasindustrial and capitalist partners, could not include their participation in the profits as capital because bsuch procedure the plaintiffs JrespondentsK were absorbed and the defendants JpetitionersK obtainedgreater participation in the profits.


8/12


9/12

/pon these facts, the !a0orit reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and sustained the petitionersplea of concluded accounting upon the following grounds.

'. That as respondents have pro!ised to sign the final state!ent of accounts upon their receipt of theirentire capital and profits, their acceptance without reservation of said capital and profits, constitutes virtualapproval of the final li;uidation and their signing the sa!e beco!es a !ere for!alit to be subse;uentl

co!plied with and which was waived b their refusal to do so@

-. That while re%e3a!ination of accounts is authori>ed upon proof of fraud or gross error, in the instantcase, the CourtFs finding as to !istae is not positive and its pronounce!ent that Dthe evidence tends toprove that there was !istae in the state!ent of accounts is not a definite conclusion sufficient to 0ustif afurther accountingD@

8. That as this case has been pending for nearl nine ears, Dif another accounting is ordered, a costlaction or proceedings !a arise which !a not be disposed of within a si!ilar period,D and thataccordingl Dit is not i!probable that the intended relief !a prove to be the respondentsF funeralD@ and

2. That, in a nutshell, the circu!stances of the case attest re!arabl to the honest of petitioners in theirdealings with respondents.

& propose to tae up these grounds seriati!.

DAn account statedD has been defined as Dan agree!ent that the balance and all ite!s of anaccount representing the previous !onetar transaction of the parties thereto are correct,together with the pro!ise to pa such balance.D #' C. :.7., p. 5(8.$ &n the present case, was theresuch an agree!ent Respondents, it is true, had pro!ised to sign the balance state!ent uponreceiving their capital and share in the profits, but the actuall had never signed such state!entand a pro!ise to sign is not e;uivalent to signing. The fact that respondents have never signedthe state!ent onl indicates that the could not agree with petitioners thereon. And if there is noagree!ent there is no account stated. &ndeed, it has been held that Din stating as account, as in!aing an other agree!ent, the !inds of the parties !ust !eet.D #' C.:., pp. 5*2%5*1.$ ere,there has been no !eeting of !inds as to the true balance.

Besides, respondentsF pro!ise to sign the state!ent of final li;uidation upon receipts of their entire capitaland profits was not absolute. &t was sub0ect to the agree!ent with petitioners that before respondentsDsign the final settle!ent the would send so!e one to Tablas to e3a!ine the partnership boos.D This isa fact supported b proof e3pressl !entioned b the Court of Appeals which the !a0orit has utterlignored and if considered would have been decidedl fatal to the conclusion it has reached. Asrespondents Dto who! the accounts were rendered had no nowledge of all the circu!stances relating tothe business and had to rel upon the good faith of their partnersD #words of the Court of Appeals$, thee3a!ination of the partnership boos beco!es to the! a !atter of capital i!portant which, for purposesof final li;uidation, cannot lightl be dis!issed. ?hen petitioners declined to allow respondentsFrepresentative to see said boos in violation of the agree!ent, respondents !ust be dee!ed legalle3e!pted fro! their pro!ise and are, therefore, entirel 0ustified in refusing to sign the final settle!ent.

Even if it be conceded that the final settle!ent had been ac;uiesced in b the respondent, a reopening ofaccounts, as the !a0orit itself ad!its, is authori>ed upon a showing of fraud or !istae. The rule is thatDan account stated being onl pri!a facie evidence of its correctness, does not wor an estoppel and issub0ect to i!peach!ent for fraud or !istae@ and if fraud or !istae e3ists it is i!!aterial that the partiesagreed that the account shall not be opened for error after a fi3ed period, that it was signed b the partcharged, or that evidence of indebtedness, receipt in full, or releases were given.D #' C.:.7., pp. 6-*%6-(.$&n the instant case, does there e3ist evidence of such !istae The Court of Appeals, putting up the sa!e;uestion, categoricall stated"


10/12

The ;uestion then is, have !istaes been co!!itted in the state!ents sent appellants Not onldo plaintiffs so allege, and not onl does the evidence so tend to prove, but the charged isseconded b the defendant the!selves when in their counterclai!s the said"

#a$ ue reciente!ente se ha hecho una acabada revision de las cuentas libros del negocio, ,se ha descubierto ;ue los de!andados co!etieron un error al hacer las entregas de las varias

cantidades en efectivo a los de!andantes, entregando en total !aores cantidades a la ;uetenian derecho estos por su participacion ganancias en dicho negocio.

But the !a0orit averred that this does not constitute a positive findings of !istae and that Dthepronounce!ent of the Court of Appeals that the evidence tends to prove that there was a !istae in thestate!ent of accounts is not a definite conclusion in a sense sufficient to 0ustif a further accounting.D As ageneral rule when the grant or refusal of a legal relief sought in this Court depends upon the e3istence offindings of fact b the Court of Appeals, the test for the grant or refusal of such relief is not whether itsfinding is positive or not, but whether such findings actuall e3ists and is sufficient for the purpose. Thereason is, in the language of the !a0orit itself, Dwe are not here authori>ed to review the evidence anddeter!ine the e3istenceD of an !atter of fact. &n the closel analogue case of #u$iri vs. %ui&ano, 9.R.No. 2*5(5. Nove!ber -*, '(2-, this Court held"

/nder the second assign!ent, the petitioners alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in notfinding that she had paid to the respondent usurious interest a!ounting #as found b the Court ofthe a!os la pretension de la de!andada, aceptada por el Tribunal a ;uo, de ;ue elde!andante percibio intereses usurariosD and Dcon respecto a la alegacion sobre usura, la!is!a nos parece insostenibleD, being conclusions, of fact, !ust be accepted for the purposes ofthe present appeal, since we cannot !ae contrar findings without ree3a!ining the evidence,and we are not authori>ed to do this.

&n the instant case, the Court of Appeals !ade a general conclusion of fact as to the e3istence of !istaeand, on the authorit of the case cited, this general conclusion !ust be dee!ed sufficient. ?hen theCourt of Appeals went further and fortified its general conclusion of fact b a specific instance of such!istae, are we to re0ect the finding as less sufficient because !ore specific

But it is said that the Court of Appeals !erel stated that the evidence so tend to proveD the e3istence of!istae. The use, however, of the verb DtendD in no wa i!ports e' necessitate rei indefiniteness ora!biguit of the evidence upon which the Court of Appeals rested its conclusion of !istae. 4oubtless,the verb was used advisedl because, the action being !erel to co!pel accounting, the Court cannotand is not actuall passing finall upon the correctness of the accounts. &ts pronounce!ent as to !istaecannot accordingl be couched with finalit, !uch as the !a0orit wishes it to be, but should !erel beworded as to indicate that a ground e3ists for the accounting praed for.

And as to the specific !istae found b the Court of Appeals to have been ad!itted in petitionersFcounterclai!, the !a0orit argues that such !istae consists in overpa!ent of respondents of what isdue to the!, and therefore, the error was not to their pre0udice. This argu!ent entirel !isses the point.?hether the !istae be favorable or unfavorable to respondents, the fact re!ains that a !istae e3ists

and this is sufficient to authori>e a reopening even of a concluded account. &ndeed, if the !istae be onepre0udicial to the interest of the part who !ade the state!ent, it is all the worse. ?hen a person !aes a!istae against hi!self when he is presu!ed to have taen special care for the protection of his interest,he !a in all probabilit be presu!ed to have !ade !ore !istaes against others whose interests he isless concerned with, if at all.

But assu!ing that the CourtFs finding as to !istae is insufficient, is the !a0orit 0ustified in closing thecase upon that ground To foreclose accounting, under the circu!stances, is to !ae, in effect, acontrar finding that there is no !istae and to presu!e that petitionersF accountings is correct. This is


11/12

both unauthori>ed and fault. /nauthori>ed, because when the finding of the Court of Appeals is heredee!ed insufficient, the re!ed is not for this Court to !ae contrar findings but to suppl the deficiencb re!anding the case to the Court of Appeals for further findings, as we did in (fiana vs. )eople #2) ff.9a>., --(8$, and Bautista vs. *ictoriano9.R. No. 25*6(, April 8, '(2). ardl close a case onl upon bare fear ordela. ?hat the law abhors is unnecessar dela in the ad!inistration of 0ustice. 4elas necessar for theascertain!ent of truth are welco!ed. urried 0ustice is certainl not to be less deplored than delaed

0ustice. 4ispatch in the disposal of cases is, indeed, in ever sste! of law, a beautiful ideal to bedevoutl wished for@ but, lie ever other ideal, its beaut or utilit ends with its abuse. ?e owe it to thepara!ount interests of 0ustice that in ever litigation we are called upon to decide, we should strivethoroughl and 0udiciousl to ascertain the truth and not to hurriedl pull down the curtain on the case untilwe are reasonabl certain that all efforts to the end have been e3hausted.

The !a0orit adds that if the accounting praed for the per!itted, it is not i!probable that the intendedrelief !a prove to be the respondentsF funeral. & tae this state!ent to !ean that the !a0orit ha>ardsthe con0ecture that if a new accounting is ordered, respondents will probabl co!e out to be less entitledthat what the have received. & do not thin this Court should, in propriet, ha>ard an guess on theprobable outco!e of an suit speciall where the guess is !ade on the basis of factual evidence aboutwhich it cannot spea with authorit. And, neither is the guess good, for if we re!and the case to theCourt of Appeals for !ore specific findings, the lielihood is that !ore specific !istaes will be shown asto render it inevitable for this Court to order a new accounting. This probabilit is founded not on !erecon0ecture but on the presu!ption of law above !entioned that the conclusions of fact of the Court of

Appeals are in accordance with the evidence.


12/12

would hate in the absence of an sufficient reason to let such a beautiful legend have a distatefulending.

Too !uch, & fear, has here been assu!ed b the !a0orit. The assu!ed that the figures cited are correctwhen the are in ;uestion@ the assu!ed that petitioners have not taen advantage of the confidence ofthe respondents when this et re!ains to be seen@ the assu!ed that petitionersF accounting is correct

when this is precisel the ;uestion between the parties@ and, finall, the held that because petitioners didnot eep an regular boos of account, the should not be co!pelled to an accounting because the !anot be able to do so, which is in effect offering a pre!iu! for negligence. This !ode of ratiocination is, to! regret, without authorit and without parallel. True petitioners ran the business of the partnershipwithout intervention whatever on the part of respondents who relied entirel on the good faith of thefor!er. This indicates that the relation between the parties is !anifestl fiduciar and it has been held thatDwhen a a fiduciar relationship e3ists between the parties stating an account in will be !ore readilreopened than when the parties had been dealing with each other at ar!Fs length.D #' C.:.7. p. 6-(.$

& wish & could share with the !a0orit in the abundance of their ad!irations for what the called theDlegendar honest, good faith and industr with which the natives of Taal pursue business arrange!entssi!ilar to the partnership in ;uestion to let Dsuch a beautiful legend have a distasteful ending.D But & fellloath to pose a set of !en as paragons of virtue and otherwise reflect, without cause or reason, upon the

integrit of the rest of their ind. & fell even !ore loath to rest the 0udg!ent of this Court upon a !erelegend, no !atter how beautiful that legend !a be, and would prefer to ad0udicate ever case upon whatthe evidence and the law alone !a direct. aeta gave out his concurring opinion predicatedfunda!entall upon facts not appearing in the findings of the Court of Appeals. ?e have held ti!e andagain that in appeals b certiorari fro! the Court of Appeals and in cases lie the present one, onl;uestions of law !a be considered, ;uestion of fact re;uiring e3a!ination of evidence being without our

0urisdiction. #Rule 25, sec. -@ 9uico vs.Mauga, 58 Phil., 8-*@ Mateo vs.Collector of Custo!s, 58 Phil.,26)@ Ma!uac vs.Abena, 8* ff. 9a>., 82, Meneses vs.Co!. of the Philippines, 2) ff, 9a>., 6th 7up.2'@ 4ia> vs.People, 2) ff. 9a>. 8d 7up. --.$ & abstain, therefore, fro! dealing on !atters that areforbidden to us b our own Rules. 4oubtless, the concurring opinion is i!pelled b the co!!endable

desire to do Dpractical,D not Dtheoretical,D 0ustice. Regrettabl, however, we cannot fulfill this end at the risof transcending the li!its of this CourtFs 0urisdictions. Beond that 0urisdiction all our pronounce!entshave no 0udicial value for the !a be regarded as !ade out of court and do not constitute due process oflaw. And, what is worse is that the concurring opinion taes the decision of the Court of ing. The law considers the Court of Appeals as superior to a Court of

35 - ornum vs. lasala

Documents