Scribd
Upload
52 views1 page

Perlas v. Ehrman, 53 Phil. 607 G.R. No. 30711. September 26, 1929

This case originated from a milling contract dispute between a sugar cane producer and a central milling company. The parties agreed to submit the case to a panel of three referees for a final decision. The majority of referees issued a report with one dissenting. The court accepted the majority report and rendered its decision accordingly. On appeal, the appellant argued the decision was invalid because two of the referees did not take an oath of office. However, the court found this was not raised until after the decision and was merely an irregularity, not affecting the validity of the proceedings since the parties had agreed to be bound by the referees' decision. Therefore, the court affirmed the original judgment.

Uploaded by

Caleb Josh Pacana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
52 views1 page

Perlas v. Ehrman, 53 Phil. 607 G.R. No. 30711. September 26, 1929

This case originated from a milling contract dispute between a sugar cane producer and a central milling company. The parties agreed to submit the case to a panel of three referees for a final decision. The majority of referees issued a report with one dissenting. The court accepted the majority report and rendered its decision accordingly. On appeal, the appellant argued the decision was invalid because two of the referees did not take an oath of office. However, the court found this was not raised until after the decision and was merely an irregularity, not affecting the validity of the proceedings since the parties had agreed to be bound by the referees' decision. Therefore, the court affirmed the original judgment.

Uploaded by

Caleb Josh Pacana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Caleb Josh T.

Pacana
G.R. No. 30711 September 26, 1929
PABLO PERLAS, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ALFRED EHRMAN, ET AL., as Philippine trustees doing business under the name of CALAMBA
SUGAR ESTATE, and its manager L. WEINZHEIMER, defendants-appellees.
Topic: TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER; Oath of Commissioner. (Sec. 4, Rule 32)
Ponente: AVANCEÑA, C.J.:
Facts:
This case has its origin in a milling contract between the plaintiff, as producer of sugar cane, and
the defendant, as a central engaged in the milling thereof. At the hearing of the case, the
parties, realizing that the only question between them was one of accounts, asked the court
that it be submitted to the decision of three referees, one appointed by each party and the
third by the two members thus chosen; that the decision of the majority be considered final
and binding upon the parties; that the case be decided by the court in accordance with said
report, and that its decision be final. The majority of the referees submitted their report with
one of them dissenting, and the court, after further considering the evidence presented to the
referees, accepted the majority report and rendered its decision in accordance therewith. An
appeal was taken from this decision.
Ruling:
In the first place, the validity of the act of the referees is attacked because two of them did not
take the oath of office before discharging their duty. It appears that this question of the failure
of the two referees to take the oath of office was not raised until the granting to the appellant
of the period within which to present his bill of exceptions. Furthermore, in the absence of
positive evidence that the two referees did not take the oath of office, this defect is a mere
irregularity which cannot vitiate the proceedings, inasmuch as the parties did not raise the
question before the referees proceeded with the hearing of the case, or before the court
rendered its decision, but only during the extension of him granted to present the bill of
exceptions.
It having been agreed by the parties that the opinion of the majority of the referees should be
final and conclusive, and that the decision of the court in view of this report should likewise, be
final, and, above all, the court's decision having been based not only upon said report but also
upon the evidence itself adduced before said referees, the judgment appealed from must be
affirmed. We find no merit in the other assignments of error in this instance.
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

You might also like