G.R. No. 30826, September 2, 1929
VIDAL CRISOSTOMO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO VIRI and NAZARIO TRILLANA, defendant-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Vidal Crisostomo filed a complaint claiming to be the exclusive owner of a fishery concession business in Bauan, Batangas, and alleging that defendants Francisco Viri and Nazario Trillana were merely his employees. He sought to compel the defendants to render an accounting of the business. The defendants countered that they were partners with the plaintiff in a verbally constituted partnership formed in September 1925 to engage in the sale of ‘bangus seed.’ They alleged that each partner was to contribute one-third of the concession price, share profits equally, and that the plaintiff had defaulted on his contribution, misappropriated partnership funds, and caused them to pay a judgment debt to the Municipality of Bauan. The case was initially tried before one judge, but was later transferred to another judge (Judge Imperial) for decision. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint and ordered him to reimburse the defendants for his share of the unpaid concession fees, return misappropriated funds, and pay damages.

ISSUE

1. Did the trial court err in having a judge who did not hear the witnesses testify render the decision?
2. Did the trial court err in granting a new trial?
3. Did the trial court err in its factual findings regarding the existence of a partnership and the respective liabilities of the parties?

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment.

1. On the judge not hearing the witnesses: The Court held that it is not necessary for the judge deciding a case to have personally seen and heard the witnesses testify. A judge can properly evaluate the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses by reading and studying the recorded testimony. This is consistent with established doctrine and the Court’s own appellate practice.

2. On the grant of a new trial: The Court found that the motion for a new trial sufficiently alleged that the judgment was contrary to law and the evidence. Detailed allegations are not required. Furthermore, upon granting a new trial, the recorded evidence from the former trial is to be used under the Code of Civil Procedure, so the plaintiff’s evidence was properly considered.

3. On the merits of the case: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings, which were supported by a preponderance of evidence. It found that a verbal partnership existed among the parties, with equal contributions and profit-sharing agreed upon. The plaintiff failed to fulfill his contribution, misappropriated partnership funds, and his unfounded lawsuit caused damages to the defendants. Consequently, the trial court correctly dismissed his complaint and held him liable for the specified amounts.