Hermanos v. Oria Hermanos & Co.

TORRES, J.:

On August 12, 1909, counsel for the commercial firm of Gutierrez Hermanos, of the city of Manila, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of said city, seeking to recover from the firm of Oria Hermanos & Co., the payment of the sum P147,204.28 besides the interest thereon from June 30, 1909, alleging among other things that, between the plaintiff and defendant companies, there existed some commercial relations which gave rise to the opening in their books of a mutual current account; that from this account to which the said defendant company had conformed, there remained a balance standing against the said defendant company, which balance amounts to the sum above-mentioned; that the plaintiff company had opportunely sent to the defendant company an abstract of the current account which shows the said balance for which the defendant company is liable to the plaintiff. In answer to the complaint, the defendant company denied the allegations therein contained, and alleged that the plaintiff company, as a commission agent, bound itself to buy and sell certain merchandise for the defendant, and that said plaintiff, in its accounts, entered fictitious or fraudulent prices of the goods, and for this reason the defendant company prayed that the plaintiff company be ordered to render an account of its transactions as such commission agent.

In view of the evidence adduced at the trial of the case by both parties the judge rendered on April 24, 1912, a judgment ordering the plaintiff company to render to the defendant company an account supported by vouchers of the amounts charged against the latter as regards the internal revenue taxes, the price and weight of the sacks of rice, and the value of the boxes of kerosene oil acquired by the plaintiff in the name and for the account of the defendant company, and condemning the defendant company to pay the plaintiff the amount prayed for in the complaint after deducting therefrom whatever amount or amounts would result in favor of the defendant company from the accounts to be rendered by the plaintiff. From this judgment both parties appealed. In March 30, 1915, this court rendered judgment whereby the plaintiff was ordered to render to the defendant an account supported by vouchers of the price and other expenses incurred in the shipment of rice as shown by the invoices examined during the trial of the case, as well as the 53 invoices mentioned by the parties at the hearing of November 29, 1910, and also the price of all the kerosene oil acquired by the plaintiff for the defendant, the invoices of which appear to have been mentioned at the trial of December 28, 1910, an lastly, to account for the amounts paid as ad valorem duties on the rice, salt, kerosene oil, and other goods the duties on which were charged against the defendant.

The case having been remanded to the lower court in compliance with the said decision of this court, the plaintiff company presented to the court a written statement of the accounts and upon hearing the defendant, the latter decreed the disapproval of the accounts so rendered, and notified the plaintiff to present to the court, within a short time, the vouchers supporting said accounts. By virtue of a written agreement entered into between the parties, the judge appointed D. M. Fleming as referee authorized to hear the parties respecting the rendition of accounts including the documents relative thereto, and to report to the court all the questions brought up by the parties during the proceedings before him.

After Fleming had entered upon his duties in conformity with his appointment and had held several hearings in which the respective counsel of both parties were present, he filed in court on February 2, 1916, a report wherein he found that only 20 invoices of rice had been justified as correct; that 8 had been accepted as transferred to Legaspi according to their entries; that 56 had been proved and the amount of P2,479.56 had been acknowledged as due to the defendant; that one valued at P110.30 was erroneously accepted in favor of the plaintiff; that 76 invoices of rice have not been supported by vouchers; that of the invoices of kerosene oil only 5 had been supported by vouchers; an that, as regards other invoices comprising 592 cans, it was proved that in all of them, there were overcharges amounting to P78.63 as discounts not granted, and in one particular case, there was a recharge of the price.

It was also found by him that there was no proof as regards the rest of the invoices which number 73. The defendant accepted this report, and asked the court to approve it, but the plaintiff opposed its approval. The court therefore ordered the referee to file an amended report, which should include facts that were not determined in the first report and for which evidence was presented, and from this order of the lower court the defendant excepted In compliance with this order of the court, on June 29, 1916, the referee submitted a second report to the court, which report contains the following summary: SUMMARY.

Equitable discounts which should be made in favor of the defendants from the invoices of rice according to the report P16,962.05 Proportional discounts from seven invoices 1,967.00