In  the early part of June, 1952, the Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc., PHILAMGEN for short, a private corporation engaged in the  insurance business in the Philippines, was approached by Epifanio J. Alano to give  a  bond to  guarantee the  payment  of a  loan of P25,000 which  he was seeking  to  obtain  from  Antonio I. Roque.  In consideration of the issuance of the bond, Alano offered to execute with his wife  in favor of PHILAMGEN a first mortgage on three (3) parcels  of land which were  covered by  Torrens  titles.  In  order that PHILAMGEN may  be in a position to consider  Alanos application, it asked C. M. Hoskin & Co., Inc., HOSKINS for short, to conduct an ocular inspection  of said  three parcels of land and to submit an appraisal report thereon.

On June 20, 1952, HOSKINS  submitted its appraisal report, together with a document purporting to be a location  plan for the property, wherein the following representations appeared: (a) that  the property  was within twenty-six (26) kilometers from the City of Manila; (b) that the property was  accessible by regular bus service; and (c) that the property was at least ¾  productive and had a fair valuation of at least  P43,000.   Relying on this appraisal  report, the  PHILAMGEN issued  on June 23, 1952, a bond for P25,000 in  behalf of Alano and his wife, in favor of Antonio I. Roque, to secure the payment of a  promissory note for  the same  amount executed by the Alanos in favor of Roque on  June 23, 1952.  In turn, the Alanos executed a first mortgage on the three parcels of land in favor of PHILAMGEN, but because the register of deeds  of Bulacan refused to register the mortgage because the property had  been originally acquired as  a homestead and could not be mortgage to a private  corporation such as  PHILAMGEN, an arrangement was made whereby Miguel  Campos,  PHILAMGEN's president, became the mortgagee of the property, thus facilitating the registration of the  mortgage in the office of the  register of deeds.   Campos, however, executed in favor of PHILAMGEN an indemnity agreement in behalf of the Alanos.

The Alanos failed to pay  the promissory note to  Antonio I. Roque, who thereupon made demand for payment upon PHILAMGEN pursuant to its bond, and accordingly PHILAMGEN paid to Roque on October 4, 1952, Alanos' obligation amounting to P25,000.  After  Roque was paid, Campos instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for the foreclosure of Alanos' mortgage,  which in due time was decided against the Alanos, the  Court decreeing the foreclosure of the mortgage.  After the decision had become final, the  provincial sheriff sold at  public auction the three parcels of land covered by the mortgage, the same having been awarded to Campos as the highest bidder for the sum of P10,000.  And  by virtue of the sale executed by the provincial sheriff, the register of deeds issued new certificates of title in the name of Campos in lieu of those originally issued  in the name of  Alanos, which were in due course cancelled.

After obtaining title to  the aforesaid three parcels of land, Campos sought to take possession of them and for this purpose  he asked  Antonio Varias, Hoskins'  vice-president, who had prepared and submitted the  appraisal report, to accompany him and indicate the location of said three parcels of land.  Varias agreed to do so, but  after motoring  to Novaliches with Campos, Rodis, manager of PHILAMGEN's Bonding Department,  and one Jose Florentino Varias was tmable to indicate any of the three parcels, although the entire area mentioned in the  appraisal report had been covered.  Varias gave us an excuse for his inability that  when he had  inspected the  property  as pointed to him by Alano, there was then a marker which served as  an identification mark but which could  no longer be found when he made the  trip with Campos and his other companions.  After several attempts to have Varias locate the  property  had failed, Varias referred Campos  to  a realtor by the name of  Ildefonso,  who promised  to look for someone who know the  location  of the property.  Ildefonso made an attempt to  locate the  property, and when he failed, Campos, upon Ildefonso's recommendation, engaged  the services of  surveyor  Pedro Bundang.  As  a result of his work, Bundang was able to indicate to Campos the property in question and submitted a plan showing the location of the  three parcels  of land in relation to the Manila-Novaliches-Ipo road.

In view of glaring discrepancies existing between the appraisal  report of Varias  and the findings made by the surveyor hired by Campos to locate  the property which show that the  representations  made by Varias  in his report were inaccurate and false, the PHILAMGEN and Manuel Campos filed the present action on July  26, 1954, against HOSKINS seeking to recover P50,000 as  damages, and  rMO,000  as attorney's  fees  and other incidental expenses.

Defendant, in its answer, set up the following defense: "That plaintiff sent Epifanio Alano to defendant,  with a plan of the property to be appraised  by defendant;  and that the appraisal of the property in question made by the defendant, as set forth in its report * * * was based upon the information that plaintiff told  defendant that  said Epifanio Alano  would give, in  fact, gave to defendant, and upon study made  by defendant of the facts, to the best of defendant's knowledge."  Defendant  set up  a counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees in the aggregate amount of P60,000.

After  both  plaintiffs and  defendant  had  submitted testimonial and documentary evidence, the Court rendered decisions,  absolving defendant-from plaintiffs' complaint, but dismissing  defendant's counterclaim, without  pronouncement  as to  costs.  Both  parties appealed  in  due time, plaintiffs in view pf the dismissal of their complaint,. and defendant because of the dismissal of its counterclaim, and the case was taken directly to this Court because the amount in litigation involves more than P50,000.

The appraisal  report,  Exhibit  "E", submitted by HOS KINS, through its vice-president Antonio Varias, to PHILAMGEN  pursuant  to the latter's  request to conduct an ocular inspection of the property which Alano was offering as a security to  PHILAMGEN so  that it may issue a bond in his behalf in favor of one Antonio Roque, states that said property  was actually  inspected by Varias and that "it  is situated approximately 800 m. east of the Novaliches-Ipo Road, at a point about 7 kms. after  the Municipality of Novaliches, or approximately 26 kms. from Manila."  But an examination  of the index map,  Exhibit "S", drawn to the scale  of 1:50,000, shows that the area referred  to is within the Municipality of Caloocan, province of Rizal, the boundary, on  the  same road, between the provinces of Rizal and Bulacan being situated  at kilometer 28 post.  On the other hand, it clearly appears that the property subject of  appraisal is not in Novaliches nor in Caloocan,  Rizal,  but is situated in different towns of an  entirely  different province Bulacan.  Thus,  the two parcels of land are located  in Norzagaray, Bulacan, while the third is situated in San Jose  Del Monte, Bulacan. The fact appears not  only in the location  plan  accompanying defendant's report but is borne out by the certificates of title of Alano, copies of which were given to Varias on the day of the ocular inspection.  The statement given in the appraisal report with regard to the  location of the property is, therefore,  inaccurate.

Again, the  statements made in the  appraisal report as to public services and the possibilities of the property, its  productivity and income analysis, proved also to be inaccurate.  Thus, as to public services and possibilities, the report states that "there is  a regular  bus service on the Novaliches-Ipo dam and  trips to and from  Manila to subject  property by public  transportation take  less than an hour."  As to production, the report states that the "information gathered  from farmers in the vicinity and from certain persons familiar with this  section, confirms owner's claim of 20-30 cavans of palay per hectare harvest from  his farm.  Owner's farm had also informed us that no less than half of the area is  already  newly planted with  this season's  crop  of rice and they expect to be able to plant at least  ¾ "  As to income, the  report states that the estimated net income of the property  is P2,000  a year.

It appears, however, that the two parcels of land situated in  Norzagaray,  according  to surveyor  Pedro  Bundang, can only be reached by a foot trail branching southeastward from kilometer 44 post along the Manila-Novaliches-Ipo Road, which foot trail is the only most direct means of access to said parcels of land.  No vehicle of  any kind can be  used on said foot trail.   The parcel of land situated in San Jose  del Monte, according to  Bundang, can  also be reached only by  a foot trail  branching  eastward from kilometer 36  post along the Novaliches-Ipo  Road, which foot trail is likewise the only most direct means of access to said parcels of land.  No vehicle of any kind can also be used on  said foot trail.  The  first two  parcels are "overgrown with tall grasses",  containing no evidence of having been planted to any crops like rice, and with the exception of  about  five mango  fruit-bearing trees, they are entirely without improvements.   The third parcel contains also no improvements of any kind and appears not to have been  cultivated at all.

In view  of the above discrepancies, the trial court made the following finding:  "It is undeniable that the appraisal report referred to does not  fit  the  lands  covered by the certificates of Alano because they are not the ones pointed out  by Alano to  Varias.  In this sense,  the  said  report may be said to be false or fabricated."

But why has the trial court absolved defendant from liability?  Its reasons are: "It was a rush appraisal work or job, and  the  interested party was sent to defendant to specifically  point out  the  location  of the  property. Plaintiff company  must  have  known  from experience it would take time  for defendant company, composed of realtors, not surveyors, to locate the property to be appraised; and it  must  have been for  this  reason that Mauricio Rodriguez  of plaintiff company  had to call defendent's office to inform that the owner of the property would specifically point  out the location of the same to save time.  Under these circumstances, it is not  seen how defendant company could be held liable for complying with instructions."

The above  finding is now vigorously disputed by  appellants who claim  that the same  is contrary  to the  truth. They claim that the  same is belied by their  evidence. In fact they  contend,  if it were  true that  Varias merely followed the  instruction given to him by Mauricio Rodriguez  that  the  appraisal was  a rush job  and should be expedited,  and that he was sending  over Epifanio Alano, the interested party,  who will indicate to him the property to be appraised,  and that Varias  merely  followed  the instruction by inspecting  and  appraising the  property indicated by Alano, it is strange that the appraisal report he  later submitted does  not contain any statement to that effect, or that it was made hurriedly  because it  was a rush job, for which reason  he was not able to make use of a surveyor as  is to  be expected from  a reliable  and competent appraiser as  defendant.

There is indeed  more  than  what the eye  can see in  this claim.  The record shows  that HOSKINS  had been engaged to do appraisal work not only for PHILAMGEN but also for its sister companies,  The Philippine American Life Insurance Company,  and the United States  Life Insurance Company, and  as such,  has  collected from said companies  considerable sums in appraisal  fees.  HOSKINS, therefore, can be considered as a confidential adviser to PHILAMGEN on appraisal matters, such that the latter had  every right  to rely on its  advice  and recommendation  without further inquiry  or  investigation of its own.  This requires that HOSKINS  make its appraisal work as accurate as possible even if  it were a rush job. The urgency of the work can not justify misrepresentation. Aside from this, there is one circumstance which creates doubt in our minds as  to the manner the appraisal was made by Varias even if we  assume that  he  merely  followed the  instruction  given by  his  employer.  It is  a matter  that appears  in the evidence that when  Alano showed  up  in the office of Varias, in order to have his property appraised, he  not only  presented  himself to be the interested party but handed over to Varias a blueprint of the property as certified by a surveyor  of  the Bureau of Lands,  together with photostatic  copies of his titles and tax declarations.  In said blueprint the natural boundaries of the property are clearly  indicated,  as  well as its  exact location  and area.  And  there it appears that two parcels of land are located in Norzagaray,  Bulacan, whereas the other parcel is situated in San Jose del Monte, of the same province.   If Varias had only observed ordinary diligence and exerted  the  effort a prudent man in The Phil. American General Insurance Co.. Inc., and  . Campos vs. C. H. Hoskins & Co., Inc. locating the  property, he would have  found by a mere examination of the blueprint that the property indicated by Alano is not in Bulacan, but in Caloocan, or Novaliches, province of Rizal, and would have  immediately detected evil design Alano had then in mind in carrying out hia  objective.  But Varias failed to take  such  rudimentary  precaution and now tries to shield himself behind so flimsy  a  claim that he just followed blindly  what  was told to him by Alano.  There is therefore enough reason to believe that while it may be  true that  the appraisal  job given to Varias is urgent in nature, Varias' action  has  not been one that may be justified under the circumstances.

We believe however that it is now of no moment to determine if  under the circumstances HOSKINS could be  held liable for the consequences of its professional conduct, which appellants claim has cost them the  loss of a  portion of their investment.  The reason is  one of procedure which in our opinion is decisive of this case.  We  refer to the claim that appellants have no cause  of action  against HOSKINS  for  lack  of  clear showing that they   have actually  sustained damages  arising  from such  actuation.

The evidence shows that  in consideration of the bond which PHILAMGEN executed  in  favor of  Antonio I. Roque to guarantee the loan obtained from him by Epifanio G. Alano, Miguel Campos personally took a first mortgage on Alanos' property because the register of deeds of Bulacan had refused to register the mortgage executed by  Alano in favor of PHILAMGEN on the claim  that  the  property had  been originally acquired as a homestead, and that subsequently Campos executed in favor of PHILAMGEN an indemnity agreement in  behalf of the Alanos for the purpose of indemnifying the aforesaid bond.  The evidence also shows  that Alano defaulted and so Roque demanded payment from PHILAMGEN who  immediately made good its  obligation under the bond.  The  evidence further shows  that Campos foreclosed  the mortgage of  Alano and  that  although he obtained judgment against the latter, he however bought the  property  of  Alano as the highest  bidder  only for the  sum of P10,000.   The recourse therefore of PHILAMGEN is  against Campos under the latter's indemnity agreement, while the remedy of Campos  to recover the balance is to  ask  for an  alias writ  of  execution against  Alano.  There is  no  showing that such steps had been taken.

It is with reason that the trial court made the  following observation: "Plaintiff Campos  has no  cause of action against the herein defendant because it was not he, but plaintiff company, that paid the loan of  Alano to Roque; on  the other hand,  plaintiff company  has  no  cause of action against defendant because it has a counter-security in the form of counter-bond in its favor, the  condition of which being that it would not collect the loss of Campos until  the  property is sold; hence, plaintiff company's recourse is against plaintiff Campos."  As the situation now stands, appellants' action is premature.

We are therefore constrained to affirm, as we hereby do, the decision of the trial court, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.