G.R. No. L-47606; April 25, 1941
FERNANDO VILLAABRILLE y E. REITHER, petitioners, vs. SIXTO DE LA COSTA, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and MAURICIO CRUZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Fernando Villaabrille y E. Reither were the defendants in Civil Case No. 52159 before the Court of First Instance of Manila, where respondent Mauricio Cruz was the plaintiff. Cruz alleged the existence of a partnership between himself and the petitioners for the purchase of sugar quotas from various planters in Luzon. He claimed that he had delivered money to the petitioners for this purpose, but they had failed to render an accounting despite demands. Cruz prayed that the petitioners be compelled to render such an account. On April 19, 1940, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the petitioner-defendants to render an account of the money received, as prayed for in the complaint. The petitioners did not comply with this order to render an account. Upon motion by respondent Cruz, the trial court, presided by respondent Judge Sixto de la Costa, issued an order on June 12, 1940. The dispositive portion of this order suspended consideration of a bill of exceptions filed by the petitioners and ordered them to present or render their accounts within ten days from receipt of the order, as previously directed in the April 19, 1940 decision; otherwise, they would be declared in contempt. The petitioners then filed the present recourse, seeking to compel the respondent judge to refrain from executing the contempt order, to approve and certify their bill of exceptions, and to condemn respondent Cruz to pay costs.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly suspended the proceedings on the petitioners’ bill of exceptions and ordered them to render the accounting under threat of contempt, thereby treating its decision ordering an accounting as not yet final for purposes of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court noted a conflict in its prior jurisprudence. In Natividad v. Villarica (31 Phil. 182, promulgated July 26, 1915), it was held that while the rendering of an account ordered by the court in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership is pending, the case cannot be considered terminated in the trial court until such accounts are rendered and approved; consequently, an appeal from the judgment declaring the partnership dissolved is premature. However, in H. E. Heacock Co. v. American Trading Co. (53 Phil. 513, promulgated September 6, 1929), the Court established a contrary doctrine. Applying the principle that the later decision controls, the Court held that the doctrine in Heacock must be applied to the present case. Therefore, the trial court’s order suspending action on the bill of exceptions and compelling the rendering of accounts under pain of contempt was improper. The Supreme Court ordered the respondent judge to refrain from executing the contempt order and to act on the bill of exceptions presented by the petitioners. Costs were adjudged against respondent Mauricio Cruz.