G.R. No. 28208 - Figueras vs. Serrano

Case Summary (G.R. No. 28208)

Factual Background

The complaint alleged that Figueras, who resided in Vigan, had made repeated trips to Cabugao, approximately twenty-seven kilometers away, to provide medical services to Primitiva Serrano, and also to Leandro Serrano, during 1919 to 1921. It further alleged that Leandro Serrano promised to pay Figueras for the travel to Cabugao at the rate of P4 per kilometer. The estate of Leandro Serrano was subsequently represented by Simeon Serrano, as administrator, because Leandro Serrano had died.

The plaintiff relied principally on a letter, Exhibit C, which he alleged had been addressed to him and signed by Leandro Serrano, to support the claimed promise to pay P4 per kilometer. The defendant, however, challenged the authenticity of Exhibit C and the signature appearing at its bottom.

Trial Court Judgment

After trial, the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur ordered the administrator to pay Figueras out of estate funds the sum of P19,144, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint, plus costs of the action. The trial court absolved Figueras from the defendant’s counterclaims.

Figueras acquiesced in the judgment. The administrator appealed, raising multiple errors related to jurisdiction, admissibility of various exhibits, the trial court’s findings on the agreement as to travel fees, and the court’s appreciation of the number of visits and the value of treatments.

Grounds of Appeal and Central Evidentiary Controversies

On appeal, the administrator argued that the complaint should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the appeal from the committee on claims in the testate proceeding was not taken within the legal period. The administrator also attacked numerous exhibits as false, apocryphal, or incompetent.

The principal dispute on merits centered on the quantity of medical visits and the agreed compensation structure. The administrator contested findings that (a) Leandro Serrano and Figueras agreed on P4 per kilometer; (b) Figueras made a particular number of visits and treatments, including in Vigan and Cabugao; and (c) the trial court correctly assessed the reasonable price of electrical treatments, injections, and eye treatments. The administrator also asserted that the fees had already been fully paid and that the trial court erred in not upholding the counterclaims.

The Court’s Examination of Exhibit C (Promise to Pay P4 Per Kilometer)

The Court scrutinized Exhibit C due to the defendant’s challenge to its genuineness. It noted that the typewritten characters in Exhibit C were very similar to those in Exhibit 2, a letter written by Figueras’s brother. The Court observed that the type in Exhibit C appeared more worn, suggesting that it may have been written later than the date appearing in the document. It also found that the prior date appearing in Exhibit C did not prevent that inference because any date, past or future, may at a given time be written on a document.

Upon examination, the Court found further indicia inconsistent with genuine execution: details supporting the presumption that Exhibit C was written on the same typewriter as Exhibit 2; changes and erasures that were not satisfactorily explained; and a “remarkable resemblance” between the signature in Exhibit G and the signature in Exhibit J, so close that it cast serious doubt on genuineness when the signatures were placed side by side. The Court considered it improbable that Leandro Serrano could have produced two signatures with near-identical curvature, letter formations, spacing, slant of strokes, and paraph details.

Because these circumstances strongly indicated that Exhibit C was not genuine, the Court held that it could not be treated as reliable proof of the alleged promise to pay P4 per kilometer. The Court further held that the burden lay on Figueras to show, at least by a preponderance of evidence, that Exhibit C was admissible and trustworthy. It ruled that the preponderance of evidence militated against the document. Accordingly, it could not be held proven that Leandro Serrano promised payment at P4 per kilometer for the medical trips to Cabugao.

Visits and Fees: Treatment of Exhibits Q and R (Notebook Entries)

Figueras offered Exhibits Q and R—notebooks purportedly containing entries of visits and professional services. The administrator objected that these exhibits were not duly identified and were incompetent evidence. The Court acknowledged testimony that witnesses recognized the writing as Figueras’s, but it emphasized that there was no proof that the entries were written with the knowledge and consent of Leandro Serrano, nor that they were made at the time of the visits and services referred to, or that they were written about that time. The Court noted uniformity of handwriting and ink color across entries spanning more than a year, which suggested that the entries were not necessarily contemporaneous with the events.

The Court stressed that it was “absolutely necessary” that entries offered in evidence be shown to have been made at or about the time of the transaction to which they relate. It quoted the evidentiary principle that written memoranda made at or about the time of the transaction are sometimes admitted to corroborate testimony. The Court held that Exhibits Q and R failed this requirement. It further observed that Figueras did not even testify concerning these exhibits. Therefore, the Court refused to consider Exhibits Q and R as legally competent to determine the number of visits in Cabugao or Vigan.

The Court also evaluated witness testimony offered to corroborate those notebooks. It noted that three witnesses—chauffeurs who took Figueras to Cabugao—had given a total number of trips only by estimation, without sufficient assurance of approximation or exactness. Another witness testified that he had seen Figueras stop in front of the municipal building of Cabugao two or three times a week. The Court held that, while the testimony established that Figueras made trips to Cabugao, it did not supply legally adequate evidence on the number of trips, which remained the disputed point. It characterized the testimony on the number of trips as conjectural and not sufficiently direct or corroborative.

Defendant’s Competent Evidence: Exhibits 6, 7, 9, and 10

By contrast, the Court found the defendant’s documentary evidence competent. It relied on Exhibits 6, 7, 9, and 10, identified by Pedro Suero and Simeon Serrano. The Court held that these entries demonstrated that Figueras made twenty-six medical visits to Primitiva Serrano in Cabugao and ninety in Vigan.

The Court explained the manner of recording. Pedro Suero testified that, as a former clerk to Leandro Serrano, he was instructed to note down in Exhibits 6 and 7—Bristol Almanacs for 1919 and 1920—the name of Figueras whenever the physician paid a professional visit to Primitiva Serrano in Cabugao. Simeon Serrano testified that he used to record Figueras’s visits to his sister, Primitiva Serrano, in Vigan, in Exhibits 9 and 10, including the initial 6 and letters “a. m.” or “p.m.” depending on whether visits occurred in the morning or afternoon.

Unlike the notebooks Q and R, the Court held that these almanac entries were competent because they were sufficiently identified by the persons who made them at the time of the visits. Their contemporaneity with the events recorded and their appearance and details rendered them admissible as corroborative evidence under the rule allowing memoranda made at or about the time of the transaction (22 C. J., 896) and consistent with Sec. 279, Code of Civil Procedure.

Amount of Professional Fees and Remaining Proof Deficiencies

Based on the almanac entries, the Court concluded that Figueras was entitled to compensation of P25 per visit for Cabugao and P2 per visit for Vigan, for a total of P830 as professional fees. It held, however, that it was not sufficiently proven that the amounts established by the evidence did not include fees for the treatments given during those visits.

The Court also held that the reasonable price of the electrical treatments, injections, and eye treatments was not sufficiently established. Further, it found that it did not appear sufficiently established that Figueras rendered medical service to Leandro Serrano.

Jurisdiction Over the Appeal from the Committee on Claims

On the jurisdictional assignment of error, the Court held that the trial court could take judicial notice of the administration proceedings, including the estate representation by the administrator, and that when the court proceeded to hear the case on appeal from the committee on claims, it must be presumed to have acted within its duties and jurisdiction. It invoked the rule on judicial notice in connection with such proceedings (Sec. 334, Nos. 14 and 15, Code of Civil Procedure).

The Court found that the presumption stood unrebutted. It thus deemed the first jurisdictional contention insufficient and upheld the propriety of the appeal’s perfection as relied upon by the trial court.

Disposition on Counterclaims and Modifications to the Trial Court’s Award

The Court agreed with the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 28208)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Gregorio Figueras sued to collect the balance of professional fees for medical services rendered to Primitiva Serrano and Leandro Serrano, represented in court by Simeon Serrano, as administrator of the estate of Leandro Serrano.
The defendant administrator answered with a general denial, special defense, and two counterclaims for damages.
The case reached the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, which awarded a partial amount in favor of the plaintiff and absolved him from the counterclaims.
The plaintiff acquiesced in the trial court’s decision, but the defendant administrator appealed.
The Supreme Court reviewed multiple assigned errors but ultimately treated some issues as unnecessary after deciding the determining points.

Claims and Counterclaims

The complaint sought the balance of professional fees amounting to P52,229, plus P7,310 interest, P5,000 damages, and the costs of the action.
The defendant’s first counterclaim sought P10,000 damages on the ground that the plaintiff prevented the partition of the estate by means of a groundless and unreasonable claim of fees.
The defendant’s second counterclaim sought P200,000 damages on the allegation that the patient, Primitiva Serrano, lost her eyesight completely due to the plaintiff’s lack of diligence and precaution in providing proper treatment.
The trial court absolved the plaintiff from both counterclaims.

Facts Concerning the Medical Services

The services for which compensation was claimed occurred during the years 1919, 1920, and 1921.
The plaintiff, who lived in Vigan, made frequent trips to Cabugao, which was 27 kilometers distant, to attend to patients residing there.
The complaint alleged that Leandro Serrano promised to pay the plaintiff P4 per kilometer for the plaintiff’s trips to Cabugao for medical visits.
Leandro Serrano later died, and the action was directed against his estate through the administrator.

Contractual Basis and Exhibit C

The plaintiff relied on Exhibit C, alleged to be a letter addressed to the plaintiff and signed by Leandro Serrano, as the principal proof of the promise to pay P4 per kilometer.
The defendant contested the authenticity of Exhibit C and the signature therein.
The Court noted that the typewritten characters in Exhibit C were very similar to those in another letter, Exhibit 2, written by the plaintiff’s brother.
The Court observed that the type in Exhibit C appeared more worn, suggesting it may have been written later, while the presence of a prior date did not negate that possibility.
The Court found changes and erasures in Exhibit C to be unexplained, which supported doubts as to its admissibility and reliability.
The Court also compared the signatures and found a remarkable resemblance between the signature in Exhibit G and that in Exhibit J, raising serious doubts about genuineness.
The Court held that the resemblance in the signature was too exact in curvature, letter forms, spacing, slant of strokes, and paraph details to be consistent with two naturally executed signatures.
The Court concluded that Exhibit C was not genuine and thus could not be treated as reliable proof of the P4 per kilometer promise.
The Court treated the burden of proof as resting on the plaintiff to show, at least by a preponderance of evidence, that the document was admissible and probative.
The Court found the preponderance to run against Exhibit C.

Nature of Fees and Visit Costs

The Court found that the preponderance of admissible evidence indicated that the cost per visit to Cabugao was about P25, given the plaintiff’s social standing and need for adequate transportation.
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to establish a per-kilometer compensation scheme through Exhibit C.
The Court instead fixed recoverable amounts based on proven visit counts and established per-visit rates.

Evidence of Number of Visits

The plaintiff offered Exhibits Q and R, which were objected to as not duly identified and as incompetent evidence.
The Court acknowledged that witnesses Parto and Florendo testified they recognized the writings in the notebooks as the plaintiff’s.
The Court held that there was no proof that the notes in Exhibits Q and R were made with the knowledge and consent, or even in the presence, of Leandro Serrano.
The Court further held that the plaintiff’s notebooks did not show that the entries were made at or near the time of the visits and professional services.
The Court found that the handwriting and ink uniformity across entries spanning over one year undermined a claim of contemporaneity.
The Court treated it as absolutely necessary for admission that such entries be shown to have been made at or about the time of the relevant transaction.
The Court quoted the rule that written memoranda made at or about the time of the transaction may be admitted to corroborate the maker’s testimony.
The Court found that Exhibits Q