G.R. No. 26878 , August 2, 1927
PAUL A. WEEMS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANASTACIA SHABOTUROFF IN PADOVANI and AMZI B. KELLY, defendant-appellees.

FACTS

Paul A. Weems, a certified public accountant, was appointed by the court as a “commissioner” to examine and report on certain accounts in a civil case where Anastacia Shaboturoff was the plaintiff. The appointment was made at Shaboturoff’s instance, with the understanding she would pay his fees. Weems later sent Shaboturoff a letter (Exhibit A) proposing his compensation rate at P100 per day, which she confirmed in writing. After performing the auditing services for 116.9 days, Weems submitted his report. He sued Shaboturoff and her attorney, Amzi B. Kelly, for P14,612.50 as compensation, alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of payment by compromising and dismissing the underlying case. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer (treated as a motion to dismiss) and dismissed the complaint, ruling that the contract (Exhibit A) was void as it would improperly create a pecuniary interest for a court-appointed officer.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint states a cause of action against the defendants.

RULING

YES. The complaint states a cause of action. The trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint is reversed.

1. The Plaintiff Was Not a “Referee” Under the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court clarified that Weems was not appointed as a “referee” under Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires written consent of both parties and confers judicial functions. His role was essentially that of an auditor or expert accountant hired at the request of Shaboturoff to assist in her case. Therefore, the legal prohibitions and rules applicable to referees (like the rule against pecuniary interest in Section 8) did not directly apply to him.

2. Recovery is Possible on the Contract or Quantum Meruit: Even assuming the written contract (Exhibit A) was invalid, the complaint still alleges that valuable services were rendered at the defendant’s request. The law implies a promise to pay for such services to prevent unjust enrichment. Therefore, the plaintiff could potentially recover based on a *quantum meruit* (the reasonable value of the services rendered).

3. Standard for Ruling on a Demurrer: In reviewing a general demurrer, all allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it clearly appears that under no conceivable set of facts would the plaintiff be entitled to relief. Here, the complaint alleged services rendered, an agreement for compensation, and non-paymentwhich are sufficient to constitute a cause of action, either on the contract or on an implied obligation to pay.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment appealed from is reversed, the demurrer is overruled, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. No costs were awarded for this instance.