G.R. No. 6305 , September 26, 1911
COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMANA GAUZON and JUAN D. POMAR, defendants. JUAN D. POMAR, receiver-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, filed a foreclosure action against Romana Gauzon. The court appointed Juan D. Pomar, an employee of the plaintiff, as receiver of the mortgaged hacienda “San Jose.” After the termination of the receivership, the court required Pomar to submit a final accounting. The lower court, after review, disallowed several items in his account. Pomar, as receiver, appealed the disallowance of the following items: (1) the full amount he claimed for cutting, hauling, and manufacturing sugar; (2) interest on money he borrowed; (3) amounts delivered to aparceros (tenant farmers); and (4) his claimed compensation for services.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in disallowing the aforementioned items in the receiver’s final account.

RULING

No, the lower court did not err.

1. On the cost of cutting and grinding sugar: The lower court correctly reduced the claimed amount (P22,944.73) to P8,565.97. The parties agreed to appoint commissioners to determine the reasonable cost. The commissioners, experienced in sugar operations, fixed the cost at P1.07 per picul. The receiver failed to prove this amount was unreasonable or that he managed the harvest with due expedition to minimize costs.

2. On interest for borrowed money: The lower court correctly disallowed the P147.86 interest. A receiver has no authority to borrow money unless expressly authorized by the court. While such authority may be ratified if necessity is proven, the receiver in this case failed to demonstrate the absolute necessity for incurring the debt.

3. On advances to aparceros: The lower court correctly disallowed the P3,001.94. Under the well-known custom, the landowner (or receiver) advances money to aparceros but deducts these advances from their share of the harvest. The receiver erroneously delivered the full half-share of the sugar to the aparceros without making the proper deductions, attempting instead to charge the advances against the estate. A receiver must protect the interests of all parties, not just one.

4. On receiver’s compensation: The lower court correctly reduced the claimed compensation (P4,860.87) to P1,000.00. The compensation of a receiver rests within the sound discretion of the court. The record supported the lower court’s finding that the receiver’s services did not justify his claimed amount, especially given his mismanagement (e.g., failing to deduct aparcero advances, incurring unnecessary interest).

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, with costs against the appellant.