G.R. No. L-8346; March 30, 1915
GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ORIA HERMANOS & CO., defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The mercantile firm Gutierrez Hermanos (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Oria Hermanos & Co. (defendant) in the Court of First Instance of Manila to collect a debit balance of P147,204.28, plus interest, arising from a mutual current account between them. The defendant admitted the existence of the account but filed cross-complaints and counterclaims. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff, acting as its commission agent, failed to: (1) render a proper final account with supporting vouchers; (2) properly account for sales of copra and hemp, accusing the plaintiff of secretly purchasing the goods itself instead of selling to third parties; (3) properly account for rice shipments, alleging the rice sold belonged to the plaintiff and was sold at excessive prices; and (4) properly account for other merchandise. The defendant also filed counterclaims for: (1) overcharged interest; (2) losses from the plaintiff’s failure to insure property as ordered; and (3) losses from alleged negligence in handling an insurance claim.

The trial court rendered a judgment ordering both parties to render mutual accounts to each other concerning the transactions specified in the pleadings. Both parties appealed this judgment.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the judgment of the trial court, which ordered the parties to render mutual accounts but did not fix a specific monetary amount due, is a final judgment appealable to the Supreme Court.
2. On the merits, whether the defendant’s cross-complaints and counterclaims were properly pleaded and substantiated to warrant the relief of an accounting.

RULING:
1. On the Appealability of the Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the judgment was final and appealable. The court ruled that a judgment is final if it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case and leaves nothing to be done except to enforce what has been decided. The trial court’s judgment finally disposed of the issues by determining the rights and obligations of the partiesspecifically, it established that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for the balance of the current account, and that the plaintiff was liable to account for its transactions as a commission agent. The subsequent accounting was merely a procedural incident to compute the exact amounts based on the rights already adjudicated. The court distinguished this from cases where the very right to an accounting or the basis of liability is still undetermined.

2. On the Merits (Cross-Complaints and Counterclaims): The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. It ruled:
On the Main Complaint: The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P144,473.78, with 8% annual interest from January 1, 1909. This amount was based on the balance shown in the statement of account which the defendant had approved by letter dated March 9, 1909. The defendant’s general denial and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud were insufficient to overcome the probative value of its written approval of the account.
On the Cross-Complaints for Accounting: The court found the defendant’s allegations in its cross-complaints to be vague, indefinite, and based on “information and belief” without presenting specific facts or evidence of fraud, bad faith, or violation of the agency contract by the plaintiff. Mere suspicion or general allegations are not enough to compel a detailed accounting. Therefore, the order for the plaintiff to render a general account was set aside.
* On the Specific Counterclaims: The counterclaims were also found to be defectively pleaded. They were based on transactions alleged to have occurred long before the current account was established and approved, and the defendant failed to present a prima facie case or specific facts to support them. Consequently, these counterclaims were dismissed.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court was reversed. The defendant, Oria Hermanos & Co., was sentenced to pay the plaintiff, Gutierrez Hermanos, the sum of P144,473.78, with legal interest at 8% per annum from January 1, 1909, and the costs of both instances. All cross-complaints and counterclaims filed by the defendant were dismissed.

NOTE: A dissenting opinion was filed, arguing that the trial court’s judgment was not final because it did not fix a specific sum of money due but only ordered an accounting. The dissent contended that no final determination of the amount owed could be made until the accounts were rendered, and therefore the appeal was premature.