G.R. No. L-9791; April 28, 1958
Fernando A. Froilan, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., defendant and appellee; Compania Maritima, intervenor-appellee; Lourdes Reyes Vda. de Caguiat, Commissioner-appellee.

FACTS

On February 3, 1951, plaintiff Fernando A. Froilan filed a complaint against defendant Pan Oriental Shipping Co. for the delivery of a ship (FS-197). Compania Maritima intervened, claiming possession and operation of the ship by virtue of a purchase from the plaintiff. The defendant filed an amended answer with counterclaims. On September 3, 1954, the lower court, upon an ex-parte motion by the defendant, appointed Enrique Caguiat as commissioner to examine the accounts involved in the defendant’s counterclaims. The commissioner conducted the examination without notifying the plaintiff and the intervenor or their attorneys. On December 1, 1954, the commissioner filed a motion for approval of his fees. The plaintiff and intervenor opposed, arguing the motion was premature as the compensation should be taxed as costs against the defeated party after a court pronouncement, and that there was no showing of the time, nature, and extent of services, deeming the amount excessive. The court held the motion in abeyance. On December 21, 1954, the commissioner filed a motion for reconsideration without a notice of hearing to the plaintiff and intervenor. The lower court, in its order of July 29, 1956, granted the motion ex-parte and ordered the plaintiff and intervenor to pay P4,670 in equal shares as the commissioner’s compensation. Plaintiff Froilan appealed this order.

ISSUE

1. Whether the commissioner’s proceedings in examining the accounts were valid despite being conducted without notice to and in the absence of the appellant and intervenor.
2. Whether the commissioner’s failure to personally examine the accounts and prepare the report invalidated his work.
3. Whether the lower court acted irregularly in granting the commissioner’s motion for reconsideration and ordering payment of his fees without notice and hearing.

RULING

1. Yes, the commissioner’s proceedings were valid. The lower court’s order appointing the commissioner directed him solely to “examine the long accounts” involved in the counterclaims. Under Section 3, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, the court may specify or limit a commissioner’s powers and direct him to perform particular acts, such as examining records of account, without the necessity of holding hearings. Since the task was limited to examining accounts and no judicial directive required hearings, the presence of the parties was not needed.
2. No, the commissioner’s failure to personally conduct the examination did not invalidate his work. While personal attention was preferable, it was not essential. The paramount consideration is that the commissioner assumes full responsibility for whatever is submitted to the court. The commissioner’s service of “reviewing” his assistant’s work was sufficient under this responsibility.
3. Yes, the lower court acted irregularly in granting the motion and ordering payment without notice and hearing. The appellant and intervenor had previously contested the commissioner’s fees, arguing a lack of showing of services rendered, excessiveness of the amount, and prematurity of the motion. Given this opposition, a hearing became indispensable to address these contentions. The ex-parte grant of the motion for reconsideration and the payment order without such hearing was improper.
DISPOSITIVE:
The order appealed from is reversed. The lower court is ordered to set the incident regarding the commissioner’s fees for hearing. No pronouncement as to costs.