GR L 1003; (December, 1902) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-1003, December 23, 1902
PIO LABAYEN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROSENDO HERNAEZ, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
The case originated under the former law of Civil Procedure, with the complaint and answer (including a counterclaim) filed accordingly. The trial proceeded under the new Code of Civil Procedure. On April 16, 1902, the court appointed experts to examine the accounts upon the parties’ suggestion. The parties later agreed to substitute experts, and on June 14, 1902, they petitioned for another substitution, specifying that the referees should “report solely upon the facts appearing from the record” in accordance with Article 134 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court issued a commission to the referees, but the clerk’s note referenced Article 136 instead. The referees submitted a report and an account-current based on the record. Without further proceedings, the trial court adopted the referees’ report in full and rendered judgment against the plaintiff.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court’s judgment, based solely on the referees’ report without complying with the proper legal procedure for references, is valid.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court declared the judgment null and void. The proceedings were highly irregular. The parties intended the referees to act under Article 134, reporting only on facts. However, the referees exceeded this by deciding questions of law. If they were acting under Article 136 (as indicated by the clerk), the mandatory procedures under Articles 138140 were not followed. This constituted a substantial defect that vitiated the judgment. The case was remanded to the lower court for proper proceedings. No costs were awarded.