G.R. No. L-27782 July 31, 1970
OCTAVIO A. KALALO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO J. LUZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellee Octavio A. Kalalo, a civil engineer, and defendant-appellant Alfredo J. Luz, an architect, entered into an agreement on November 17, 1959, whereby Kalalo would render engineering design services to Luz for fees based on percentages of the architect’s fee. Kalalo rendered services for ten projects. On December 11, 1961, Kalalo sent Luz a statement of account (Exhibit “1-A”) claiming total engineering fees of P116,565.00, with a balance due of P59,565.00 after deducting payments of P57,000.00. Luz contended only P10,861.08 was due and sent a check for that amount, which Kalalo refused. Kalalo filed a complaint for unpaid fees and damages. The trial court referred the case to a Commissioner, whose report found Kalalo was entitled to $28,000.00 (U.S.) for the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Project and P51,539.91 for other projects, less payments of P69,475.46. The parties agreed the Commissioner’s findings of fact were not objected to, leaving only legal issues on estoppel and currency conversion. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Kalalo, ordering Luz to pay P51,539.91 and $28,000.00 (to be converted to Philippine pesos at the current exchange rate at payment), deducting P69,475.46, plus interest, and P8,000.00 in attorney’s fees. Luz appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Kalalo’s December 11, 1961 statement of account (Exhibit “1-A”) estopped him from claiming fees different from those stated therein.
2. Whether the dollar-denominated fee for the IRRI Project should be paid based on the exchange rate at the time of payment of the judgment.
3. Whether the aggregate balance due to Kalalo is only P15,792.05 as claimed by Luz.
4. Whether the award of P8,000.00 in attorney’s fees was proper despite the Commissioner’s recommendation of P5,000.00.
5. Whether Luz is entitled to relief on his counterclaim.

RULING

1. No, Kalalo was not estopped. The statement of account (Exhibit “1-A”) did not constitute estoppel because: (a) Kalalo was laboring under an innocent mistake when he prepared it, as found by the trial court; (b) Luz was not misled by the statement and did not rely on it to his prejudice, as he had his own records and did not accept the figures; and (c) the statement was not an account stated, as it was not accepted by Luz. The statement was merely a preliminary demand, not a final account.
2. Yes, the dollar obligation should be paid in Philippine currency at the current rate of exchange at the time of payment. This is in accordance with Republic Act No. 529, which mandates that obligations payable in foreign currency are to be discharged in Philippine currency at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of payment.
3. No, the aggregate balance is not only P15,792.05. The trial court correctly adopted the Commissioner’s findings, which were not objected to by the parties on factual grounds. Luz’s computation was based on his own interpretation and was not supported by the evidence.
4. Yes, the award of P8,000.00 in attorney’s fees was proper. The trial court has discretion to determine a reasonable amount, and considering the judgment exceeded P100,000.00, the award was reasonable.
5. No, Luz is not entitled to relief on his counterclaim in view of the disposition of the preceding assignments of error.
The decision of the trial court was affirmed.