G.R. No. L-28208, September 3, 1928
GREGORIO FIGUERAS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMEON SERRANO, as administrator of the Estate of Leandro Serrano, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: J. Romualdez

FACTS

Dr. Gregorio Figueras (appellee) filed an action against Simeon Serrano, as administrator of the estate of Leandro Serrano (appellant), to collect the alleged balance of his professional fees for medical services rendered to Leandro Serrano and his daughter Primitiva Serrano from 1919 to 1921. Figueras claimed that Leandro Serrano had agreed to pay him P4 for each kilometer of travel between Vigan and Cabugao (a distance of 27 km) for house calls. He sought P52,229 as principal, plus interest and damages. The defendant denied the claim and filed counterclaims for damages, alleging that Figueras hindered the estate’s partition with a groundless claim and caused Primitiva’s blindness through negligence. The Court of First Instance partially granted Figueras’s claim, ordering the estate to pay P19,144. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether key evidence, particularly Exhibit C (a letter allegedly from Leandro Serrano agreeing to the P4/km rate), was admissible and genuine.
3. Whether the plaintiff’s evidence sufficiently proved the number of medical visits and treatments rendered and the agreed or reasonable compensation.
4. Whether the defendant’s counterclaims should be upheld.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s decision.

1. On Jurisdiction: The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction. It could take judicial notice of the testate proceedings and the appeal from the committee on claims. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applied, as there was no evidence presented to rebut the legality of the appeal to the Court of First Instance.

2. On the Admissibility and Genuineness of Evidence:
* Exhibit C: The Court found Exhibit C, the cornerstone of the P4/km agreement, to be inadmissible and not genuine. A meticulous examination revealed suspicious similarities with another document (Exhibit 2) typed on the same machine, unexplained erasures, and an almost identical signature to another exhibit (Exhibit J), which was highly improbable for genuine signatures. The plaintiff failed to prove its authenticity by a preponderance of evidence. Consequently, the alleged special agreement for travel compensation was not proven.
* Exhibits Q and R (Notebooks): The Court also found Exhibits Q and R, notebooks purporting to record the medical visits, inadmissible. They were not proven to have been made contemporaneously with the visits or with the knowledge of the patient. The uniform handwriting and ink over a long period cast doubt on their reliability as real-time records.

3. On the Proof of Services and Reasonable Compensation: Absent the special agreement (Exhibit C) and the corroborative notebooks (Q & R), the Court evaluated the remaining evidence. It found that the preponderance of credible evidence showed Figueras made approximately 26 visits to Cabugao and 90 visits to Vigan. The reasonable fee was assessed at P25 per house call in Cabugao (considering travel and the physician’s standing) and P2 per office consultation in Vigan. The Court rejected the trial court’s findings of a much higher number of visits and specialized treatments due to insufficient proof. Based on the recalculated visits (26 x P25 = P650; 90 x P2 = P180), the total reasonable fee was P830.

4. On the Counterclaims: The Court agreed with the trial court that the defendant’s counterclaims for damages were not sufficiently proven.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment was MODIFIED. The defendant-appellant (estate) was ABSOLVED from the complaint. Since the plaintiff had already received P1,025 from the estate, which exceeded the recalculated fee of P830, his claim was deemed fully satisfied. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff-appellee, Dr. Figueras.

SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Malcolm dissented in part. He agreed that the P60,000+ claim was exaggerated and that Exhibit C was suspicious. However, he believed there was sufficient other evidence to support a reasonable award. He would have granted Figueras P5,000 for his services, based on approximately 200 visits to Cabugao at P20/visit, a similar number of office consultations, and special treatments.