G.R. No. 1889: September 5, 1905
John B. Early, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Sy-Giang, defendant-appellant.

FACTS: Plaintiff John B. Early, a lawyer, filed an action to recover $500 (U.S. gold) from defendant Sy-Giang for professional services rendered in 1901 and 1902. The defendant filed a general denial. After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, rendered services, and that the $500 fee was reasonable. The defendant moved for the court to formulate specific findings of fact as to the concrete services rendered, citing Section 133 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure). The trial court denied this motion.

ISSUE
Whether the trial court’s decision complied with Section 133 of Act No. 190, which requires that a decision upon a trial of a question of fact must be in writing and state the facts essential to a clear understanding of the issues.

RULING
Yes, the trial court’s decision complied with the law. The Supreme Court held that in an action to recover compensation for legal services, the findings that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a lawyer, that services were rendered, and that the amount charged was reasonable are sufficient findings of fact to justify the judgment. It is not necessary for the court to detail every particular service rendered. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.