In his first cause of action, plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant P15,000 for  and on account of legal services alleged to have been performed  by himself and his firm in an effort to recover from the Collector of Internal Revenue back  income taxes, which the defendant was required to pay, amounting to P114,758.98, plus the penalty of 100 per cent, which later, through the efforts of the plaintiff and his firm, was reduced to P84,550.55, which was the total amount of all back income taxes in question,  and all of the  penalties levied thereon.   This latter amount was then paid under protest.

As  a second cause of action, it is alleged that after such payments were made under protest, the defendant engaged the plaintiff to obtaining a  refund of the penalties, amounting to P42,542.13, with the understanding and agreement that plaintiff's fee for such services would be 60 per centum of any amount refunded.  Plaintiff contends that the obtaining of the refund was complicated,  intricate  and delicate, required much study and exhaustive research, the exercise  of great care, and occupied much time.  That on March 2, 1923, without notice  to the plaintiff,  defendant employed other attorneys to represent him in the matter, and dispensed with his services.  That the value of the services rendered by him in connection with the obtaining of the refund of the 100 per cent penalties paid by the defendant accomplished the desired result,  and is reasonably worth the agreed fee  of 60 per centum  of P42,452.13, or P25,525.28, while the services rendered by plaintiff in connection with the new and  additional  taxes and penalties referred to  in  the preceding paragraph are  reasonably worth P2,000, making a total of P27,525.28, which the plaintiff seeks to recover in his second cause of action.

Plaintiff asks for a corresponding judgment, with legal interest on the P15,000 from January 6, 1921, and with like interest on the P27,525.28 from March 2,  1923, with costs and general relief.

For answer, the defendant made a specific denial of each and all of the material allegations alleged in the complaint.

The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plain- tiff on the first  cause of action for P7,500, and  for Pl,000 on the  second cause of action, with legal interest on both amounts, from  which the plaintiff appeals,  assigning  the following error:

"The lower court erred in only allowing plaintiff P7,500 instead of P15,000 on the first cause of action, and P1,000 instead of P27,525.28 on the  second cause of action, with interest from the filing of  the complaint instead of from date of demand."

And  the  defendant  appeals,  assigning the  following errors:

"I. The lower court erred in awarding plaintiff the sum of seven thousand five  hundred  pesos for the services alleged in the first cause  of action.

"II. The lower  court erred  in  not holding that the subsequent assessment of  one  hundred eleven  thousand five hundred thirty-five  pesos and seventy-two  centavos, imposed on defendant in addition to the eighty-four thousand five  hundred  fifty pesos and fifty-five centavos, already paid, was due to acts of the plaintiff, and should be taken into consideration in determining the just value of plaintiff's services.

"III.  The lower court erred in holding plaintiff entitled to compensation for his unsuccessful efforts  to  obtain the refund of the penalties imposed on his client, and in awarding him one  thousand pesos as compensation therefor.

"IV. The lower court erred in denying defendant's motion for a new trial."

JOHNS, J.:

The only real question involved in the first cause of action is as to the amount which the plaintiff should receive for his services, the defendant contending that the assessment of P111,537.72, which was later, imposed on him, in addition to  the P84,550.55, which he had previously paid, was the direct result of the actions and conduct of the plaintiff.   In  other words, after the original reduction was obtained, for which plaintiff claims compensation, by reason of the actions and conduct of the plaintiff and his hostile attitude and manner  of  doing business, the  Collector of Internal Revenue made another assessment against the defendant, in  which he required him to pay the further sum of P111,537.72.   Upon that point, the trial court found as a fact that the plaintiff was not responsible for, and should not be charged with, the last assessment of P111,537.72.

It is elementary that an attorney is entitled to  have and receive a just and reasonable compensation for services performed at the special instance and request of his client. That is true even  though he may make mistakes in  the discharge of his duties, unless such mistakes are the result of his own carelessness and negligence.  That is to say, as long as  the plaintiff was honestly  and  in good faith trying to serve and represent the interests of the  client, he should have a reasonable compensation for his  services. That was the theory of the trial court, and it was upon that basis that it allowed plaintiff P7,500 on his first cause of action.

All things considered,  we  are not  disposed to  disturb that finding.

As to the second cause of action, the  record shows that the plaintiff did perform some service.  That the defendant was  not satisfied with the policies and methods which were pursued by the plaintiff, and, as a result thereof, defendant employed other attorneys, and in legal effect discharged the plaintiff.

For  his alleged  services,  the lower  court allowed the plaintiff P1,000 on the second cause of action. All things considered, we are not disposed to disturb that finding.

Much could  be  said about the facts of this case, but it would not serve any useful purpose.

We agree  with  the trial court.   Judgment is affirmed. Neither party  to recover costs.   So ordered.

Avancena,  C. J.,  Street,  Malcolm,  Villamor, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
 Johnson, J.,  did not take part.