UNETHICAL AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT (AS LAWYER) TOWARD HIS CLIENT, THE HEREIN PETITIONER. We find no merit in the first assigned error. Petitioner contends that absent any agreement on attorneys fees, the determination of the compensation for the lawyers services will have to be based on quantum meruit, such as but not limited to the extent and character of the services rendered, the labor, time and trouble involved, the skill and experience called for in performing the services, the professional and social standing of the lawyer, and the results secured (citing cases). Petitioner further contends that private respondent failed to demonstrate the circumstances showing the extent of services rendered and that there were no specific findings of fact in the courts decision that would justify the award of an additional US$2,500.00 as attorney fees to private respondent. The issue of the reasonableness of attorneys fees based on quantum meruit is a question of fact, and well-settled is the rule that conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons. The findings of the Court of Appeals by itself, which are supported by substantial evidence are almost beyond the power of review by the Supreme Court.iv[4] We find no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the respondent court as follows: If it were really true as appellant alleged, that it was not difficult to reopen the closed file of her claim as the same did not involve a legal matter, why is it that she did not handle her claim single-handedly? Why did she took (sic) pains in requesting legal assistance from appellee? In her testimony before the trial court, appellant testified that her former lawyer, Atty. Pedro Laurel died after the filing of her application for payment. Hence, during the pendency thereof, Atty. Laurel should therefore be credited the commencement of appellants claim. Appellant likewise testified that after the death of Atty. Laurel, the case was considered closed obviously for the reason that no earnest efforts were exerted in relation thereto. It was at this crucial stage that appellees services were utilized to its successful completion in the revival of reopening of appellants claim. Needless to say, appellees handling of appellants claim demanded close and constant communication and dealings with foreign agencies like the U. S. Department of Labor and Continental Insurance. Even granting that appellee handled only a single hearing for appellants case and that was when Dra. Altes-Montes deposition was taken, the same was very material as it established the validity of appellants claim. The degree and extent of service rendered by an attorney for a client is best measured in terms other than mere number of sheets of paper. A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for services rendered.v[5] The respondent courts ratiocination in affirming the reasonableness of the additional compensation of US$2,500.00 awarded by the trial court properly took into account the character and extent of the services rendered, the results secured which amounted to an award of $53,347.80, and the critical nature of counsels intervention to pursue the claims after the death of the former counsel, in justifying the award. Petitioners attempt to belittle the value of said services at this time does not appeal to our sense of reason and fairness. Also the fact that no