G.R. No. L-1299, November 16, 1903
VICENTE PEREZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENIO POMAR, Agent of the Compañia General de Tabacos, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Vicente Perez filed a complaint against Eugenio Pomar, the agent of Compañia General de Tabacos in Laguna, for the recovery of compensation for services rendered as an interpreter. Perez alleged that from December 8, 1901, to May 31, 1902, Pomar verbally requested him to act as interpreter between Pomar and various military authorities. Perez claimed he rendered these services continuously, holding himself in readiness, which caused him to abandon his soap factory, resulting in alleged damages. He sought payment at the customary rate for interpreting services and damages. Pomar denied soliciting Perez’s services, claiming that Perez accompanied him occasionally out of friendship and acted as interpreter voluntarily without any offer of payment, and that no legal relation existed between Perez and the company. The trial court ruled in favor of Perez, awarding him $600 (Mexican), less $50. Pomar appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether an implied contract for compensation arose from the rendition and acceptance of interpreting services by Perez for Pomar, thereby obligating Pomar to pay reasonable remuneration.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court, modifying the trial court’s decision, held that an implied innominate contract (facio ut des) arose between the parties. Although there was no express agreement on compensation, the mutual consent was tacitly established by Perez’s rendition of interpreting services and Pomar’s acceptance and use of those services. This created a bilateral obligation under Articles 1088, 1089, and 1262 of the Civil Code. The contract was licit, and the principle that no one should enrich himself at the expense of another applied.

Since no fixed salary was agreed upon, the Court determined the reasonable value of the services based on the evidence, noting the services were rendered on several occasions but not continuously as claimed. The Court found the compensation of 200 Mexican pesos (less the 50 pesos already considered) to be just. The claim for damages was correctly rejected by the lower court.

The Court also ruled that the contract was not required to be in writing under Article 1280 of the Civil Code or Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it was a lease of services not falling within the enumerated categories.

DISPOSITIVE:
Judgment was rendered against Eugenio Pomar, ordering him to pay Vicente Perez the sum of 200 Mexican pesos, from which the sum of 50 pesos was to be deducted. The trial court’s decision was affirmed insofar as it was consistent with this ruling and reversed in conflict. No costs were awarded for this instance.