This case  was brought to this Court upon a writ of certiorari  against a judgment of the Court of Appeals. .  In the judgment Paz Fernandez and Guadalupe Darjuan, defendants, are absolved from the claims of Ngo Seng and Go Pin, plaintiffs, and of Norberto Quisumbing, intervenor, and the latter is sentenced to pay Ngo Seng and Go Pin P15,867.50 and Paz Fernandez, P5,069.15.  The facts found by the Court of Appeals necessary to an understanding of the issues involved in this case are as follows:

Paz Fernandez and Guadalupe Darjuan were proprietors and operators in the year 1947 of a carpentry shop for the construction of bus bodies.  As they needed funds with which to buy materials and to pay wages of the laborers, Rafael Fernandez, friend of Paz Fernandez,  secured the help of his friend, Norberto Quisumbing.  Quisumbing in turn sought  the help of his own friends Ngo Seng and . Go Pin.  Both Quisumbing at first, and Ngo Seng and Go Pin later, furnished funds to Paz Fernandez. Mortgages were executed to cover the sums taken first from Quisumbing and later from Ngo Seng and Go Pin.  Quisumbing , was also authorized by a power of attorney executed by the proprietors of the shop to purchase the  materials and pay the laborers and to collect the accounts due said proprietors.   As Paz Fernandez,  and Darjuan  failed  to pay the mortgage indebtedness to Ngo Seng and Go Pin, the latter brought the action to recover the mortgage debt of P28.600 and Quisumbing intervened, demanding accounting of the sums  received by Fernandez  and Darjuan in payment  of busses constructed and his share in  the profits. Fernandez and Darjuan  alleged that  the  sum actually borrowed from  Ngo Seng  and Go Pin was f20,000,  and that this was not received by them but by Quiaumbing, and by  way of  counterclaim demanded the payment of P10,000 as losses and damages and P33,634.19 as overpayment and usurious interest.paid in the  mortgage loans.

The relationship between the parties is divided into three periods.  During the first period, Quisumbing spent P20,700 and  collected  P9,245.80,  so there remained a balance of P11,454.20 Jn his favor.  'During the second  period and according to the  receipts, Quisumbing received on account of the mortgage  from Ngo Seng and Go Pin only P20,000 and  kept  for himself P8.600.  But the sums appearing in the receipts included an interest of 45 per cent, so that the actual sum  received by Quisumbing  and  invested by him in the business was  only P15,867.50. During the second period, P20.240 was collected by  Quisumbing, according to him, so the losses for the two periods would be P7.O81.Y0, thus:

	First period  (Loss)....................................................................		P11.454.20
	Second period (Expenses) .......................................................		15,867.50
		Total ......................................................................	P27.321.70
	Less: Collection ......................................................................		P20.240.00
		Loss .....................................................................	P7,081.00

The above losses would be true if all the  statements of account were given credit.   But of the statements,  three are  not signed and do not bear the conformity  of Paz Fernandez. These are statements  K, L  and M.  These statements contain the following amounts as supposed expenses:

	Exhibit K .................................................................		P7,493.56
	Exhibit L .................................................................		3,668.71
	Exhibit M ................................................................		2,562.73
		Total .........................................................	P13.724.99

As said statements  were not signed by  Paz Fernandez and no evidence  was introduced to prove these  expenses, the same  could not be charged by Quisumbing against the business.

The sums actually collected by Quisumbing for the account  of  the  business amounted to  P37.460, not P20.240, as claimed by him.  If from this amount the losses during the  first  period, amounting to P11,454.20  and the  sums received from Ngo Seng and Go  Pin during the second period, amounting to P15.867.50, or a total of P27.321.30, are to be deducted (from the above collections  of P37.460), the profit  would be P10,138.30.

Quisumbing should, therefore, pay to  Ngo Seng and Go Pin the sum of P15.887.50,  with interest at  the rate of 12 per cent from the filing of the complaint, and pay to Paz Fernandez,  P5.069.15,  representing  one-half  of the profit  of P10.138.30, with interest from the filing of the counterclaim against Quisumbing on March 29,  1948. The  above is  the judgment of the  Court  of  Appeals against which an appeal has been brought by  way of certiorari.

The  most important issue raised  in  the appeal is the failure of the respondent Court of  Appeals to take into account the report of a certified public accountant, Exhibit O,  in which it appears that the balance of collections for which Quisumbing is responsible is P63.69, thus:

"STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
"Collections on finished jobs ...........................................................				P44.400.00
Advances from M.U.B ...................................................................				7,500.00
		Total  collections ........................		P51.900.00
"Deduct:
	Materials used .................................................................		P16.317.70	...............
	Wages paid laborers ........................................................		17,863.61	34,171.31
	Net collections .................................................................			P17,728.69
"Deduct:
	Money received by Mrs. Paa Fernandez ............................		P20,215.00
	Less amount received by Mr. Quisumbing ..........................		2,550.00	17,665.00
	Balance of collections .........................................................			P63.69"

Petitioners first contend that as the said report Exhibit O was not objected to by the respondent Paz Fernandez, the same  should be  admitted even though the referee did  not attach the exhibits supporting said report.  In answer the respondents argue that the question now raised  in  this Court was not brought to the Court of Appeals for consideration ; that a court has the right to reject the report of a commissioner if the same is  at variance with the substantial preponderance of evidence, even if no objections have been filed thereto; and that the commissioner who submitted the report was asked to make a report on those facts found by him in certain documents in the custody of the Anti-Usury Board and did not hear witnesses thereon. We find these arguments  of  the  respondents valid  and supported by the facts and the circumstances.

The commissioner  who submitted  the. statement of accounts, Exhibit O, was  not designated for the "purpose of trying or considering an issue in a case within the meaning of section  1 of Eule 34 of the Rules, of  Court.  He was not asked to find how much was owed by one party to the other.  He was not  entrusted with  the determination of an issue.  AH that he was asked to do was "to  examine all the records relevant to this case, now in the  custody of the Anti-Usury Board"  (p. 80 of the Record on Appeal). The report of the said accountant, therefore, was  not the report contemplated  within Rule 34.

In the second place, we presume that the papers examined were statements  prepared by  Quisumbing himself, which must have been  seized by the  Anti-Usury  Board, or submitted by him to the latter in the course  of the investigation as to the  legality of his transactions.  The authenticity and correctness of said documents were never before the court.  The same were not presented to support the report and no opportunity was  afforded the adverse party to question  them.  Admitting for the sake of argument that the documents were in the handwriting  of Quisumbing, the same are incompetent against Paz Fernandez and Darjuan,  because books of account, as regards other persons, are hearsay or res inter alios acta, except when circumstances are shown to justify their admission as an exception  to the above  rule (Aldecoa &  Co. vs. Warner, Barnes &  Co., 30 Phil- 153).  No reason of necessity or circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness was adduced; Quisumbing was living, indeed he actually testified. Neither were the documents shown to have been kept in the performance of  a duty required by law (section 35, Rule 123, Rules of Court).

"A mere ex parte memorandum of  a transaction  or occurrence, even though made at the time of such a transaction or occurrence, is  not, ordinarily admissible as evidence thereof  against a  third person, unless  prepared in the discharge of some public duty of some duty arising out of the business relations of the person making it  with others, or  in the regular course of his own  business, or with knowledge and concurrence of the party to be charged and for the purpose of charging him  *  *  *"  (20  Am.  Jur. section 942,  p.  796.).

The allegations of Quisumbing are sought to be proved . by original statements of accounts which he submitted in court at the time of the trial, marked  Exhibits D to N. The findings of the Court of Appeals are based on  these very statements. If Quisumbing had wanted  to,rely upon the papers in the possession of the Anti-Usury Board, he could have secured certified or photostatic  copies thereof for presentation at the time of the trial. Evidently, he did not rely on these papers or statements of accounts.  That he did not rely on them is confirmed by the  fact that no mention about them is made in the decision of the Court of Appeals.  The counsel for the respondents alleged  without contradiction that the question of the value  of  Exhibit O  was never brought before the consideration  of the Court of Appeals.

Lastly, the conduct of petitioner Quisumbing himself in relying upon original  statements signed by  the adverse party, upon  which  statements he  had  testified,  and the further fact  that he did not testify on the statements or papers subject of the report Exhibit 0 shows  that  these papers must  have been considered by him of" inferior  value as evidence.   Besides the said report  (Exhibit 0)   does not dovetail  with the other documentary evidence that he had presented. All these  circumstances show  that  Quisumbing never pretended that said report was relied  upon by him as basis  of his claims.  He now relies upon the report  evidently as an excuse for coming to this Court. For all the above reasons, we find no cause for reversing the decision of the respondent tribunal in relying mainly for its decision  on the other documentary evidence submitted  by the appellants themselves.

The  fourth assignment of error seeks to  strike  out and correct a statement contained in the decision that 45 per cent was charged by Quisumbing during a short period of 40 days in  addition to 12  per cent  agreed  upon in the mortgage.  It is claimed that this is unnecessary?   We believe otherwise.  The  statement is a conclusion  of fact made by the Court of Appeals, upon which  the decision is based.   It is very material to the decision, and thia Court is not authorized, and no one for that matter is, to order its suppression.

The fifth assignment of error refers to an alleged mistake in arithmetic, in the computation. The above error should have been submitted to the Court of Appeals for its correction.  This Court, being an appellate tribunal, reviews only errors  or issues actually brought before  the respondent court, and it appearing that the supposed  error is insignificant the same is hereby overruled.

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing considerations, the judgment  appealed from is hereby affirmed in  toto,  with costs against the petitioners.

Parás, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,  A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.