G.R. No. L-4871
LEONCIO IMPERIAL, defendant-appellee, vs. ALFONSA TOLEDO, defendant-appellant.
December 10, 1909

FACTS:
In July 1907, Attorney Leoncio Imperial filed a complaint against Alfonsa Toledo, seeking P1,398 for professional services rendered since 1903 in the testate estate of Toledo’s deceased husband, Juan Pascual. Toledo initially failed to appear or answer, leading to a judgment by default in favor of Imperial.

Toledo, through her attorney, subsequently requested and was granted a new trial, setting aside the default judgment and allowing her to file an answer, to which Imperial excepted. Toledo then filed an answer denying the allegations.

After a trial where both parties presented evidence (though only documentary evidence, not witness testimony, was submitted to the Supreme Court on appeal), the lower court rendered judgment a second time in favor of Imperial, ordering Toledo to pay P1,398 plus costs.

Toledo appealed, arguing that the judgment was erroneous for not conforming to Sections 29 (reasonable compensation for lawyers) and 133 (requirements for written decisions) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant herself conceded that the absence of witness testimony limited the appellate court’s review of the facts.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the P1,398 awarded to the plaintiff for professional services constituted a “reasonable compensation” under Section 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Whether the trial court’s decision complied with Section 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the statement of facts.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court.

1. On reasonable compensation: The Court found that the trial judge considered the P1,398 as a just, not excessive, and reasonable compensation for the services rendered. Since the testimony of witnesses was not submitted for review on appeal (a fact acknowledged by the appellant herself), the Supreme Court could not overturn the factual findings of the lower court regarding the reasonableness of the fee. The Court held that “whatever is reasonable and just can not be excessive.”
2. On compliance with Section 133: The Court found that the lower court’s decision, which stated that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant and rendered services as a lawyer, contained sufficient facts to support its legality and justice, thus complying with Section 133.

The Court concluded that the judgment was in accordance with the law, given the factual findings established by the trial court, which could not be reviewed without the complete evidence.