G.R. No. 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 (plaintiff-appellee) filed an action against Simeon Serrano, as administrator of the estate of Leandro Serrano (defendant-appellant), to collect the alleged balance of his professional fees for medical services rendered to Leandro Serrano and his daughter Primitiva Serrano during 1919-1921. 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 the principal balance, 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 that his negligence caused Primitiva’s complete blindness. 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 thereof.
4. Whether the defendant’s counterclaims should be upheld.

RULING

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

1. On Jurisdiction: The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction. It presumed the regularity of the proceedings, including the timely appeal from the committee on claims in the estate settlement, as no evidence was presented to rebut this presumption.

2. On the Admissibility and Genuineness of Evidence:
* Exhibit C: The Court found Exhibit C 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 agreement to pay P4 per kilometer was not proven.
* Exhibits Q and R (Notebooks): The Court also found Exhibits Q and R (the plaintiff’s notebooks recording visits) inadmissible as evidence of the transactions. They were not proven to have been made at or about the time of the medical visits they purported to record, as required for such memoranda to be admissible for corroboration.

3. On the Proof of Services and Reasonable Compensation: With the key documentary evidence (Exhibits C, Q, R) deemed inadmissible or unreliable, the plaintiff’s claim lacked sufficient credible proof. The Court, based on the admissible evidence, found that a reasonable fee for a house call to Cabugao, considering the plaintiff’s social standing and the need for automobile travel, was about P25 per visit. However, the exact number of visits was not satisfactorily established by competent evidence.

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

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the judgment. It found that the plaintiff had already received P1,025 in payments. Since the Court determined the total reasonable value of his proven services to be only P830, the fees had been overpaid. Therefore, the defendant was ABSOLVED from the complaint. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff-appellee, Dr. Gregorio Figueras.

SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Malcolm dissented. He believed that, even without Exhibit C, there was sufficient evidence (including the physician’s book of account) to establish an approximate number of visits and a reasonable fee. He found both the plaintiff’s original demand and the trial court’s award excessive but argued that completely denying any compensation was unjust. He would have awarded the plaintiff P5,000 for his services.