G.R. No. 1890. September 22, 1905

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in this cause, alleging:

1. That he is a lawyer, duly authorized to practice in the courts of the Philippine Islands;
2. That the defendant was duly appointed as executor of the last will and testament of one Joaquin Martinez Sy-Tiong-Tay;
3. That the plaintiff was employed as a lawyer by the defendant, as such
   executor, in the administration of the estate of the said Sy-Tiong-Tay
   from the 1st day of February, 1901, to the 20th day of November, 1902;

4. That during the said period the plaintiff performed services for the
   defendant in prosecuting and defending certain suits with reference to
   the said estate, and other analogous services, at the request of the
   defendant;

5. That said services on the part of the plaintiff were worth the sum of $3,000;
6. That in the month of August, 1903, the plaintiff requested the payment
   of said sum of the defendant, and that the same remains unpaid.

The defendant appeared and presented a motion requesting that the
plaintiff present a bill of particulars, which motion was allowed by
the court.

The defendant presented a bill of particulars in accordance with the order of the court.

Later the defendant filed his answer, in substance as follows:

1. Denying all and each of the allegations contained in the complaint;
2. Denying that he was the administrator of the last will and testament of
   Joaquin Martinez Sy-Tiong-Tay between the 1st day of February, 1901,
   and the 20th day of November, 1902.

After hearing the evidence, on the 7th day of March, 1904, the judge
of the court of the Court of First Instance rendered the following
judgment:

“This is a cause commenced by the plaintiff against
the defendant as executor of the last will and testament of
Sy-Tiong-Tay for the sum of $3,000, gold, for professional services
which it is alleged have been rendered by the plaintiff to the
defendant in the administration of the said estate.

“The
plaintiff has declared with respect to his employment by the defendant,
and also with respect to the services rendered, and he is corroborated
by two or three disinterested witnesses.

“The defendant did
not declare as a witness; if he had known that the contract of service
had not been made with the plaintiff, or that the services had not been
rendered, the court presumes that he (the defendant) would have
presented himself as a witness in the cause. Virtually there does not
exist any proof against the declaration of the plaintiff, and that of
his witnesses, with respect to the services rendered, nor with
reference to the reasonableness of the account rendered for such
services.

“With reference to the question of fact presented,
and of the proof, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiif has a
right to recover of the defendant the sum that he claims, with the
exception of the amount of $100, rendered by the plaintiff to the
defendant with respect to an action against the quartermaster of the
United States Army.

“The plaintiff did not give any proof to
the contrary respecting the services rendered with reference to this
$100. It is declared, therefore, that plaintiff, John B. Early, is
entitled to recover from the defendant Sy-Giang, as the executor of the
last will and testament of Sy-Tiong-Tay, the sum of $2,900, and the
costs of the suit, for which sum he may have a writ of execution
against the property and credits of said estate in the possession of
the said Sy-Giang.”

The defendant immediately took exception to the decision of the
court, and announced his intention to present at the proper time a bill
of exceptions, and on the 9th day of March, 1904, presented the
following motion:

“You are hereby notified that on the 12th day of
March, 1904, at 8 o’clock a. m., or as soon thereafter as the parties
may be heard, the defendant will ask the court to formulate his
conclusions of fact in the above-entitled cause, specifying clearly
what are the concrete services which the proof shows have been rendered
by the plaintiff to the defendant. “Said motion is based on the
provisions of section 133 of Act No. 190, and on the fact that in the
decision dictated by the court in said cause the judgment has not
specified the facts upon which the said decision is based.”

This motion was later denied by the judge. The question presented
here is, Are the facts set out in the decision of the court sufficient
to justify the conclusions of the court that the plaintiff is entitled
to recover of the defendant the sum of $2,900?

With reference to the issues presented in the pleadings the court
found that there was no proof against the declarations of the plaintiff
and his witnesses with respect to the services rendered by the
plaintiff to the defendant, and that the amount charged by the
plaintiff for his services was reasonable, and that the plaintiff had a
right to recover of the defendant the sum claimed by the plaintiff,
less $100.

This finding of the court is sufficient to show that the plaintiff
performed services for the defendant, which services were reasonably
worth the sum of $2,900, but the defendant in his answer denied that he
was “the administrator of the last will and testament of Joaquin
Martinez Sy-Tiong-Tay during the time that the plaintiff rendered the
legal and professional services for him.” The plaintiff alleged that
the defendant was the executor of the last will and testament of the
said Sy-Tiong-Tay. By both the general and special answer of the
defendant this question whether or not the defendant was in fact the
executor of the estate of the said Sy-Tiong-Tay at the time the said
services were rendered, was put in issue and the burden was upon the
plaintiff to show that said services were in fact rendered for the
defendant as executor of the said estate. The court below makes no
finding upon this question. Neither does the record show that if this
obligation was contracted at all, that it was created in accordance
with the provisions of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions.
Therefore the facts stated in the decision are insufficient upon which
a judgment can be based against the defendant as executor af the last will and testament of Joaquin Martinez Sy-Tiong-Tay. Therefore the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause is hereby remanded to the lower court for trial de novo,
with costs to the plaintiff, and after the expiration of twenty days
judgment will be entered accordingly and the case returned to the lower
court for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, and Mapa, JJ., concur.

---

DISSENTING

CARSON, J.:

I dissent.

As stated in the majority opinion, the sole question presented here
is whether the facts set out in the decision of the trial court are
sufficient to justify the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to
recover of the defendant the amount allowed in the judgment.

It is stated that there is no finding in the decision that Sy-Giang
was the executor of the last will and testament of Joaquin Martinez
Sy-Tiong-Tay, and therefore that the judgment in this case should be
reversed.

The trial court found from the evidence before it, that the
plaintiff rendered professional services to the value of $2,900 to the
defendant—that is, to Sy-Giang, executor of said last will and
testament. The finding necessarily involves a finding that Sy-Giang was
executor of said will, for if it be true that the services were
rendered to Sy-Giang, executor of the said will, then Sy-Giang, when
such services were rendered, must have been the executor. To hold
otherwise is to look to the form and not to the substance.

As to the suggeston that the record does not show whether the
obligation was created in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Procedure in Civil Actions, it is sufficient to say that no question
was raised as to this point, either at the trial or on the appeal, and
the trial court having declared that the services were rendered, and
that the plaintiff had the right to recover therefor, it must be
considered that that court found from the evidence before it that the
services were duly authorized and legally rendered. On the ground that
the question had not been raised at the trial nor presented on appeal,
this court affirmed the judgment in the case of John B. Early and
Edward M. White against Sy-Giang, executor,^[1] No. 2027,
although there was no evidence in that case as to the authority of the
defendant, as executor, to employ the plaintiffs to render the
professional services for which judgment was allowed, I can see no
reason for proceeding on a different principle in this case.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

---

^[1] 4 Phil. Rep., 730.