G.R. No. 2027, September 5, 1905
John B. Early and Edward H. White, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Sy-Giang, executor of the last will and testament of Joaquin Martinez Sy-Tiong-Tay, defendant and appellant.

FACTS: Plaintiffs-appellees, lawyers John B. Early and Edward H. White, filed an action against defendant-appellant Sy-Giang, in his capacity as executor of the estate of Joaquin Martinez Sy-Tiong-Tay, to recover $2,500 in gold for professional legal services rendered from November 20, 1902, to August 15, 1903. The defendant requested and was granted a bill of particulars detailing the services. In his answer, the defendant denied the allegations and claimed he was not the executor during the period the services were rendered. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the reduced sum of $1,947.73 in gold. Upon the defendant’s motion, the court issued a new decision with specific findings, including that the defendant, as executor and guardian, employed the plaintiffs; that services were rendered as alleged; that the estate was valued at about 300,000 pesos; and that the adjusted sum was a just and reasonable charge, though some items in the bill were not strictly professional services. The defendant did not testify at the trial.

ISSUE
Whether the defendant-appellant, Sy-Giang, is liable to pay the plaintiffs-appellees for the professional legal services rendered in the administration of the estate.

RULING
Yes, the defendant-appellant is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The Court noted that the findings of fact by the trial court were supported by the evidence, establishing that the defendant employed the plaintiffs as lawyers in the administration of the estate, that services were rendered, and that the amount awarded was a just and reasonable charge. The Court observed that while some services listed in the bill of particulars might not be strictly professional, all were rendered in connection with the estate’s administration. No issue was raised at trial or on appeal regarding the defendant’s authority as executor to hire the plaintiffs. The defendant’s failure to testify in his own behalf, while present in Manila, was also noted. The judgment was affirmed with costs.