Facts:

The case of Felipe Buencamino, Jr. vs. Antonio Soriano, decided on January 18, 1915, involves an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The plaintiff, Felipe Buencamino, Jr., sought to recover the sum of P2,500 from the defendant, Antonio Soriano, for professional legal services rendered. The defendant contested the claim, asserting that there was an agreement between the parties that the plaintiff would provide these services without charge. Following the trial, the lower court ruled in favor of Buencamino, ordering Soriano to pay the claimed amount along with costs. Soriano subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify the court's decision. However, he did not take exception to the trial court's order denying this motion, which became a pivotal point in the appeal process. The Supreme Court, therefore, was limited in its review to the legal questions raised, as the...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellee: Felipe Buencamino, Jr.
   • Defendant and Appellant: Antonio Soriano

2. Nature of the Case:

   • The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover P2,500 for professional services rendered as an attorney for the defendant.

3. Defense:

   • The defendant claimed that the plaintiff agreed to perform the services gratis (without charge).

4. Procedural History:

   • The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding the sum of P2,500 and costs.
   • The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, but failed to take an exception to the trial court's denial of the motion.

5. Key Legal Issue:

   • Whether the Supreme Court can review the evidence and retry questions of fact in the absence of an exception to the denial of the motion for a new trial.

Issue:

1. Primary Issue:

   • Can the Supreme Court review the evidence and retry questions of fact when the appellant failed to take an exception to the denial of the motion for a new trial?

2. Subsidiary Issue:

   • Is the failure to take an exception to the denial of a motion for a new trial a jurisdictional bar to the Supreme Court's review of the evidence?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. The Court held that it could not review the evidence or retry questions of fact because the appellant failed to take an exception to the denial of the motion for a new trial.

Ratio:

• (Unlock)