G.R. No. 110647 & G.R. No. 112563. June 28, 2001.
NARI ASANDAS, doing business under the name and style of EXPOCRAFT INTERNATIONAL, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and KISHINCHAND DIALDAS, respondents. (Consolidated with: HEIRS OF KISHINCHAND HIRANAND DIALDAS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NARI ASANDAS, doing business under the name and style of EXPOCRAFT INTERNATIONAL, respondents.)

FACTS

On April 18, 1979, Kishinchand Hiranand Dialdas filed a complaint against Nari Asandas before the Court of First Instance (later Regional Trial Court) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 123013. The complaint prayed for an audit of the books and records of “Expocraft International” from October 15, 1972, to December 31, 1977, to determine Dialdas’s one-third (1/3) share in the business and for payment of that share. Dialdas died on November 22, 1984, and was substituted by his heirs (petitioners in G.R. No. 112563). On August 28, 1986, the trial court rendered a decision holding Dialdas was a partner and ordered an independent audit to determine his 1/3 share, and payment thereof with interest, plus damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on May 31, 1990, and the Supreme Court denied the petition for review on October 15, 1990, making the judgment final on November 7, 1990.
On March 21, 1991, the trial court granted a writ of execution. The sheriff served a notice on respondent Asandas to produce the books and records for audit. Asandas failed to produce them, claiming they were burned in a fire before the writ’s service. On June 28, 1991, petitioners filed a motion to authorize the plaintiff to determine the 1/3 share under Rule 39. Asandas manifested the books were lost, not due to deliberate refusal. On October 14, 1991, petitioners submitted their computation of the share. After comments and a withdrawn offer for conference, the trial court issued an Order on October 7, 1992, determining the 1/3 share due to petitioners as P472,367.85, based on evidence including a prior compromise agreement where another partner, Balani, received P210,000 for his 1/3 share up to August 31, 1976, and an estimated monthly income rate.
Asandas filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. On June 18, 1993, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s Order and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding the trial court’s determination was based solely on petitioners’ computation without a hearing. Petitioners (Heirs of Dialdas) filed G.R. No. 112563 seeking reversal, while Asandas filed G.R. No. 110647, arguing the trial court judgment was null for being conditional. The cases were consolidated.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the trial court’s Order of October 7, 1992, which determined the monetary value of the petitioner’s 1/3 share in the partnership, and in remanding the case for further proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the trial court’s Order determining the exact amount of P472,367.85 as the 1/3 share was not in accordance with the final and executory judgment, which only ordered an audit to determine the share. The final judgment did not specify a liquidated amount. Since the books of account were lost, making the ordered audit impossible, the trial court should have conducted a hearing to receive evidence from both parties to ascertain the exact amount due, rather than relying solely on the petitioners’ computation. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the precise value of the share. The case was remanded to the trial court for this purpose.