G.R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995

GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, TOMAS O. DEL CASTILLO, JR., and BENJAMIN T. BACORRO, petitioners, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and JOAQUIN L. MISA,respondents.

The instant petition seeks a review of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, dated 26 February 1993, in CA-G.R. SP No. 24638 and No. 24648 affirming in toto that of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in SEC AC 254.

The antecedents of the controversy, summarized by respondent Commission and quoted at length by the appellate court in its decision, are hereunder restated.

The law firm of ROSS, LAWRENCE, SELPH and CARRASCOSO was duly registered in the Mercantile Registry on 4 January 1937 and reconstituted with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 4 August 1948. The SEC records show that there were several subsequent amendments to the articles of partnership on 18 September 1958, to change the firm [name] to ROSS, SELPH and CARRASCOSO; on 6 July 1965 . . . to ROSS, SELPH, SALCEDO, DEL ROSARIO, BITO & MISA; on 18 April 1972 to SALCEDO, DEL ROSARIO, BITO, MISA & LOZADA; on 4 December 1972 to SALCEDO, DEL ROSARIO, BITO, MISA & LOZADA; on 11 March 1977 to DEL ROSARIO, BITO, MISA & LOZADA; on 7 June 1977 to BITO, MISA & LOZADA; on 19 December 1980, [Joaquin L. Misa] appellees Jesus B. Bito and Mariano M. Lozada associated themselves together, as senior partners with respondents-appellees Gregorio F. Ortega, Tomas O. del Castillo, Jr., and Benjamin Bacorro, as junior partners.

On February 17, 1988, petitioner-appellant wrote the respondents-appellees a letter stating:

I am withdrawing and retiring from the firm of Bito, Misa and Lozada, effective at the end of this month.

"I trust that the accountants will be instructed to make the proper liquidation of my participation in the firm."

On the same day, petitioner-appellant wrote respondents-appellees another letter stating:

"Further to my letter to you today, I would like to have a meeting with all of you with regard to the mechanics of liquidation, and more particularly, my interest in the two floors of this building. I would like to have this resolved soon because it has to do with my own plans."

On 19 February 1988, petitioner-appellant wrote respondents-appellees another letter stating:

"The partnership has ceased to be mutually satisfactory because of the working conditions of our employees including the assistant attorneys. All my efforts to ameliorate the below subsistence level of the pay scale of our employees have been thwarted by the other partners. Not only have they refused to give meaningful increases to the employees, even attorneys, are dressed down publicly in a loud voice in a manner that deprived them of their self-respect. The result of such policies is the formation of the union, including the assistant attorneys."

On 30 June 1988, petitioner filed with this Commission's Securities Investigation and Clearing Department (SICD) a petition for dissolution and liquidation of partnership, docketed as SEC Case No. 3384 praying that the Commission:

"1. Decree the formal dissolution and order the immediate liquidation of (the partnership of) Bito, Misa & Lozada;

"2. Order the respondents to deliver or pay for petitioner's share in the partnership assets plus the profits, rent or interest attributable to the use of his right in the assets of the dissolved partnership;

"3. Enjoin respondents from using the firm name of Bito, Misa & Lozada in any of their correspondence, checks and pleadings and to pay petitioners damages for the use thereof despite the dissolution of the partnership in the amount of at least P50,000.00;

"4. Order respondents jointly and severally to pay petitioner attorney's fees and expense of litigation in such amounts as maybe proven during the trial and which the Commission may deem just and equitable under the premises but in no case less than ten (10%) per cent of the value of the shares of petitioner or P100,000.00;

"5. Order the respondents to pay petitioner moral damages with the amount of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00.

"Petitioner likewise prayed for such other and further reliefs that the Commission may deem just and equitable under the premises."

On 13 July 1988, respondents-appellees filed their opposition to the petition.

On 13 July 1988, petitioner filed his Reply to the Opposition.

On 31 March 1989, the hearing officer rendered a decision ruling that:

"[P]etitioner's withdrawal from the law firm Bito, Misa & Lozada did not dissolve the said law partnership. Accordingly, the petitioner and respondents are hereby enjoined to abide by the provisions of the Agreement relative to the matter governing the liquidation of the shares of any retiring or withdrawing partner in the partnership interest." 1

On appeal, the SEC en banc reversed the decision of the Hearing Officer and held that the withdrawal of Attorney Joaquin L. Misa had dissolved the partnership of "Bito, Misa & Lozada." The Commission ruled that, being a partnership at will, the law firm could be dissolved by any partner at anytime, such as by his withdrawal therefrom, regardless of good faith or bad faith, since no partner can be forced to continue in the partnership against his will. In its decision, dated 17 January 1990, the SEC held:

WHEREFORE, premises considered the appealed order of 31 March 1989 is hereby REVERSED insofar as it concludes that the partnership of Bito, Misa & Lozada has not been dissolved. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Hearing Officer for determination of the respective rights and obligations of the parties. 2

The parties sought a reconsideration of the above decision. Attorney Misa, in addition, asked for an appointment of a receiver to take over the assets of the dissolved partnership and to take charge of the winding up of its affairs. On 4 April 1991, respondent SEC issued an order denying reconsideration, as well as rejecting the petition for receivership, and reiterating the remand of the case to the Hearing Officer.

The parties filed with the appellate court separate appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 24638 and CA-G.R. SP No. 24648).

During the pendency of the case with the Court of Appeals, Attorney Jesus Bito and Attorney Mariano Lozada both died on, respectively, 05 September 1991 and 21 December 1991. The death of the two partners, as well as the admission of new partners, in the law firm prompted Attorney Misa to renew his application for receivership (in CA G.R. SP No. 24648). He expressed concern over the need to preserve and care for the partnership assets. The other partners opposed the prayer.

The Court of Appeals, finding no reversible error on the part of respondent Commission, AFFIRMED in toto the SEC decision and order appealed from. In fine, the appellate court held, per its decision of 26 February 1993, (a) that Atty. Misa's withdrawal from the partnership had changed the relation of the parties and inevitably caused the dissolution of the partnership; (b) that such withdrawal was not in bad faith; (c) that the liquidation should be to the extent of Attorney Misa's interest or participation in the partnership which could be computed and paid in the manner stipulated in the partnership agreement; (d) that the case should be remanded to the SEC Hearing Officer for the corresponding determination of the value of Attorney Misa's share in the partnership assets; and (e) that the appointment of a receiver was unnecessary as no sufficient proof had been shown to indicate that the partnership assets were in any such danger of being lost, removed or materially impaired.

In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners confine themselves to the following issues:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that the partnership of Bito, Misa & Lozada (now Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo) is a partnership at will;

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that the withdrawal of private respondent dissolved the partnership regardless of his good or bad faith; and

3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that private respondent's demand for the dissolution of the partnership so that he can get a physical partition of partnership was not made in bad faith;

to which matters we shall, accordingly, likewise limit ourselves.

A partnership that does not fix its term is a partnership at will. That the law firm "Bito, Misa & Lozada," and now "Bito, Lozada, Ortega and Castillo," is indeed such a partnership need not be unduly belabored. We quote, with approval, like did the appellate court, the findings and disquisition of respondent SEC on this matter; viz:

The partnership agreement (amended articles of 19 August 1948) does not provide for a specified period or undertaking. The "DURATION" clause simply states:

"5. DURATION. The partnership shall continue so long as mutually satisfactory and upon the death or legal incapacity of one of the partners, shall be continued by the surviving partners."

The hearing officer however opined that the partnership is one for a specific undertaking and hence not a partnership at will, citing paragraph 2 of the Amended Articles of Partnership (19 August 1948):

"2. Purpose. The purpose for which the partnership is formed, is to act as legal adviser and representative of any individual, firm and corporation engaged in commercial, industrial or other lawful businesses and occupations; to counsel and advise such persons and entities with respect to their legal and other affairs; and to appear for and represent their principals and client in all courts of justice and government departments and offices in the Philippines, and elsewhere when legally authorized to do so."

The "purpose" of the partnership is not the specific undertaking referred to in the law. Otherwise, all partnerships, which necessarily must have a purpose, would all be considered as partnerships for a definite undertaking. There would therefore be no need to provide for articles on partnership at will as none would so exist. Apparently what the law contemplates, is a specific undertaking or "project" which has a definite or definable period of completion. 3

The birth and life of a partnership at will is predicated on the mutual desire and consent of the partners. The right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. Its continued existence is, in turn, dependent on the constancy of that mutual resolve, along with each partner's capability to give it, and the absence of a cause for dissolution provided by the law itself. Verily, any one of the partners may, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will. He must, however, act in good faith, not that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership 4 but that it can result in a liability for damages. 5

In passing, neither would the presence of a period for its specific duration or the statement of a particular purpose for its creation prevent the dissolution of any partnership by an act or will of a partner. 6 Among partners, 7 mutual agency arises and the doctrine of delectus personae allows them to have the power, although not necessarily theright, to dissolve the partnership. An unjustified dissolution by the partner can subject him to a possible action for damages.

The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the parties caused by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on, as might be distinguished from the winding

up of, the business. 8 Upon its dissolution, the partnership continues and its legal personality is retained until the complete winding up of its business culminating in its termination. 9

The liquidation of the assets of the partnership following its dissolution is governed by various provisions of the Civil Code; 10 however, an agreement of the partners, like any other contract, is binding among them and normally takes precedence to the extent applicable over the Code's general provisions. We here take note of paragraph 8 of the "Amendment to Articles of Partnership" reading thusly:

. . . In the event of the death or retirement of any partner, his interest in the partnership shall be liquidated and paid in accordance with the existing agreements and his partnership participation shall revert to the Senior Partners for allocation as the Senior Partners may determine; provided, however, that with respect to the two (2) floors of office condominium which the partnership is now acquiring, consisting of the 5th and the 6th floors of the Alpap Building, 140 Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati, Metro Manila, their true value at the time of such death or retirement shall be determined by two (2) independent appraisers, one to be appointed (by the partnership and the other by the) retiring partner or the heirs of a deceased partner, as the case may be. In the event of any disagreement between the said appraisers a third appraiser will be appointed by them whose decision shall be final. The share of the retiring or deceased partner in the aforementioned two (2) floor office condominium shall be determined upon the basis of the valuation above mentioned which shall be paid monthly within the first ten (10) days of every month in installments of not less than P20,000.00 for the Senior Partners, P10,000.00 in the case of two (2) existing Junior Partners and P5,000.00 in the case of the new Junior Partner. 11

The term "retirement" must have been used in the articles, as we so hold, in a generic sense to mean the dissociation by a partner, inclusive of resignation or withdrawal, from the partnership that thereby dissolves it.

On the third and final issue, we accord due respect to the appellate court and respondent Commission on their common factual finding, i.e., that Attorney Misa did not act in bad faith. Public respondents viewed his withdrawal to have been spurred by "interpersonal conflict" among the partners. It would not be right, we agree, to let any of the partners remain in the partnership under such an atmosphere of animosity; certainly, not against their will. 12Indeed, for as long as the reason for withdrawal of a partner is not contrary to the dictates of justice and fairness, nor for the purpose of unduly visiting harm and damage upon the partnership, bad faith cannot be said to characterize the act. Bad faith, in the context here used, is no different from its normal concept of a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement on costs.

G.R. No. L-19819 October 26, 1977

WILLIAM UY, plaintiff-appellee, vs.BARTOLOME PUZON, substituted by FRANCO PUZON, defendant-appellant.

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instanre of Manila, dissolving the "U.P. Construction Company" and ordering the defendant Bartolome Puzon to pay the plaintiff the amounts of: (1) P115,102.13, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid; (2) P200,000.00, as plaintiffs share in the unrealized profits of the "U.P. Construction Company" and (3) P5,000.00, as and for attorney's fees.

It is of record that the defendant Bartolome Puzon had a contract with the Republic of the Philippines for the construction of the Ganyangan Bato Section of the Pagadian Zamboanga City Road, province of Zamboanga del Sur 1 and of five (5) bridges in the Malangas-Ganyangan Road. 2 Finding difficulty in accomplishing both projects, Bartolome Puzon sought the financial assistance of the plaintiff, William Uy. As an inducement, Puzon proposed the creation of a partnership between them which would be the sub-contractor of the projects and the profits to be divided equally between them. William Uy inspected the projects in question and, expecting to derive considerable profits therefrom, agreed to the proposition, thus resulting in the formation of the "U.P. Construction Company" 3which was subsequently engaged as subcontractor of the construction projects. 4

The partners agreed that the capital of the partnership would be P100,000.00 of which each partner shall contribute the amount of P50,000.00 in cash. 5 But, as heretofore stated, Puzon was short of cash and he promised to contribute his share in the partnership capital as soon as his application for a loan with the Philippine National Bank in the amount of P150,000.00 shall have been approved. However, before his loan application could be acted upon, he had to clear his collaterals of its incumbrances first. For this purpose, on October 24, 1956, Wilham Uy gave Bartolome Puzon the amount of P10,000.00 as advance contribution of his share in the partnership to be organized between them under the firm name U.P. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY which amount mentioned above will be used by Puzon to pay his obligations with the Philippine National Bank to effect the release of his mortgages with the said Bank. 6 On October 29, 1956, William Uy again gave Puzon the amount of P30,000.00 as his partial contribution to the proposed partnership and which the said Puzon was to use in payment of his obligation to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. 7 Puzon promised William Uy that the amount of P150,000.00 would be given to the partnership to be applied thusly: P40,000.00, as reimbursement of the capital contribution of William Uy which the said Uy had advanced to clear the title of Puzon's property; P50,000.00, as Puzon's contribution to the partnership; and the balance of P60,000.00 as Puzon's personal loan to the partnership. 8

Although the partnership agreement was signed by the parties on January 18, 1957,9 work on the projects was started by the partnership on October 1, 1956 in view of the insistence of the

Bureau of Public Highways to complete the project right away. 10 Since Puzon was busy with his other projects, William Uy was entrusted with the management of the projects and whatever expense the latter might incur, would be considered as part of his contribution.  11 At the end of December, 1957, William Uy had contributed to the partnership the amount of P115,453.39, including his capital. 12

The loan of Puzon was approved by the Philippine National Bank in November, 1956 and he gave to William Uy the amount of P60,000.00. Of this amount, P40,000.00 was for the reimbursement of Uy's contribution to the partnership which was used to clear the title to Puzon's property, and the P20,000.00 as Puzon's contribution to the partnership capital. 13

To guarantee the repayment of the above-mentioned loan, Bartolome Puzon, without the knowledge and consent of William Uy, 14 assigned to the Philippine National Bank all the payments to be received on account of the contracts with the Bureau of Public Highways for the construction of the afore-mentioned projects. 15 By virtue of said assignment, the Bureau of Public Highways paid the money due on the partial accomplishments on the government projects in question to the Philippine National Bank which, in turn, applied portions of it in payment of Puzon's loan. Of the amount of P1,047,181.07, released by the Bureau of Public Highways in payment of the partial work completed by the partnership on the projects, the amount of P332,539.60 was applied in payment of Puzon's loan and only the amount of P27,820.80 was deposited in the partnership funds, 16 which, for all practical purposes, was also under Puzon's account since Puzon was the custodian of the common funds.

As time passed and the financial demands of the projects increased, William Uy, who supervised the said projects, found difficulty in obtaining the necessary funds with which to pursue the construction projects. William Uy correspondingly called on Bartolome Puzon to comply with his obligations under the terms of their partnership agreement and to place, at lest, his capital contribution at the disposal of the partnership. Despite several promises, Puzon, however, failed to do so. 17 Realizing that his verbal demands were to no avail, William Uy consequently wrote Bartolome Puzon pormal letters of demand, 18 to which Puzon replied that he is unable to put in additional capital to continue with the projects. 19

Failing to reach an agreement with William Uy, Bartolome Puzon, as prime contractor of the construction projects, wrote the subcontractor, U.P. Construction Company, on November 20, 1957, advising the partnership, of which he is also a partner, that unless they presented an immediate solution and capacity to prosecute the work effectively, he would be constrained to consider the sub-contract terminated and, thereafter, to assume all responsibilities in the construction of the projects in accordance with his original contract with the Bureau of Public Highways. 20 On November 27, 1957, Bartolome Puzon again wrote the U.P.Construction Company finally terminating their subcontract agreement as of December 1, 1957. 21

Thereafter, William Uy was not allowed to hold office in the U.P. Construction Company and his authority to deal with the Bureau of Public Highways in behalf of the partnership was revoked by Bartolome Puzon who continued with the construction projects alone. 22

On May 20, 1958, William Uy, claiming that Bartolome Puzon had violated the terms of their partnership agreement, instituted an action in court, seeking, inter alia, the dissolution of the partnership and payment of damages.

Answering, Bartolome Puzon denied that he violated the terms of their agreement claiming that it was the plaintiff, William Uy, who violated the terms thereof. He, likewise, prayed for the dissolution of the partnership and for the payment by the plaintiff of his, share in the losses suffered by the partnership.

After appropriate proceedings, the trial court found that the defendant, contrary to the terms of their partnership agreement, failed to contribute his share in the capital of the partnership applied partnership funds to his personal use; ousted the plaintiff from the management of the firm, and caused the failure of the partnership to realize the expected profits of at least P400,000.00. As a consequence, the trial court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim and ordered the dissolution of the partnership. The trial court further ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P320,103.13.

Hence, the instant appeal by the defendant Bartolome Puzon during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the said Bartolome Puzon died, and was substituted by Franco Puzon.

The appellant makes in his brief nineteen (19) assignment of errors, involving questions of fact, which relates to the following points:

(1) That the appellant is not guilty of breach of contract; and

(2) That the amounts of money the appellant has been order to pay the appellee is not supported by the evidence and the law.

After going over the record, we find no reason for rejecting the findings of fact below, justifying the reversal of the decision appealed from.

The findings of the trial court that the appellant failed to contribute his share in the capital of the partnership is clear incontrovertible. The record shows that after the appellant's loan the amount of P150,000.00 was approved by the Philippin National Bank in November, 1956, he gave the amount P60,000.00 to the appellee who was then managing the construction projects. Of this amount, P40,000.00 was to be applied a reimbursement of the appellee's contribution to the partnership which was used to clear the title to the appellant's property, and

th balance of P20,000.00, as Puzon's contribution to the partnership. 23 Thereafter, the appellant failed to make any further contributions the partnership funds as shown in his letters to the appellee wherein he confessed his inability to put in additional capital to continue with the projects. 24

Parenthetically, the claim of the appellant that the appellee is equally guilty of not contributing his share in the partnership capital inasmuch as the amount of P40,000.00, allegedly given to him in October, 1956 as partial contribution of the appellee is merely a personal loan of the appellant which he had paid to the appellee, is plainly untenable. The terms of the receipts signed by the appellant are clear and unequivocal that the sums of money given by the appellee are appellee's partial contributions to the partnership capital. Thus, in the receipt for P10,000.00 dated October 24, 1956, 25 the appellant stated:ñé+.£ªwph!1

Received from Mr. William Uy the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) in Check No. SC 423285 Equitable Banking Corporation, dated October 24, 1956, as advance contribution of the share of said William Uy in the partnership to be organized between us under the firm name U.P. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY which amount mentioned above will be used by the undersigned to pay his obligations with the Philippine National Bank to effect the release of his mortgages with the said bank. (Emphasis supplied)

In the receipt for the amount of P30,000.00 dated October 29, 1956, 26 the appellant also said:ñé+.£ªwph!1

Received from William Uy the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) in Check No. SC423287, of the Equitable Banking Corporation, as partial contribution of the share of the said William Uy to the U.P. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for which the undersigned will use the said amount in payment of his obligation to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. (Emphasis supplied)

The findings of the trial court that the appellant misapplied partnership funds is, likewise, sustained by competent evidence. It is of record that the appellant assigned to the Philippine National Bank all the payments to be received on account of the contracts with the Bureau of Public Highways for the construction of the aforementioned projects to guarantee the repayment of the bank. 27 By virtue of the said appeflant's personal loan with the said bank assignment, the Bureau of Public Highways paid the money due on the partial accomplishments on the construction projects in question to the Philippine National Bank who, in turn, applied portions of it in payment of the appellant's loan. 28

The appellant claims, however, that the said assignment was made with the consent of the appellee and that the assignment not prejudice the partnership as it was reimbursed by the appellant.

But, the appellee categorically stated that the assignment to the Philippine National Bank was made without his prior knowledge and consent and that when he learned of said assignment, he cal the attention of the appellant who assured him that the assignment was only temporary as he would transfer the loan to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation within three (3) months time. 29

The question of whom to believe being a matter large dependent on the trier's discretion, the findings of the trial court who had the better opportunity to examine and appraise the fact issue, certainly deserve respect.

That the assignment to the Philippine National Bank prejudicial to the partnership cannot be denied. The record show that during the period from March, 1957 to September, 1959, the appellant Bartolome Puzon received from the Bureau of Public highways, in payment of the work accomplished on the construction projects, the amount of P1,047,181.01, which amount rightfully and legally belongs to the partnership by virtue of the subcontract agreements between the appellant and the U.P. Construction Company. In view of the assignemt made by Puzon to the Philippine National Bank, the latter withheld and applied the amount of P332,539,60 in payment of the appellant's personal loan with the said bank. The balance was deposited in Puzon's current account and only the amount of P27,820.80 was deposited in the current account of the partnership. 30 For sure, if the appellant gave to the partnership all that were eamed and due it under the subcontract agreements, the money would have been used as a safe reserve for the discharge of all obligations of the firm and the partnership would have been able to successfully and profitably prosecute the projects it subcontracted.

When did the appellant make the reimbursement claimed by him?

For the same period, the appellant actually disbursed for the partnership, in connection with the construction projects, the amount of P952,839.77. 31 Since the appellant received from the Bureau of Public Highways the sum of P1,047,181.01, the appellant has a deficit balance of P94,342.24. The appellant, therefore, did not make complete restitution.

The findings of the trial court that the appellee has been ousted from the management of the partnership is also based upon persuasive evidence. The appellee testified that after he had demanded from the appellant payment of the latter's contribution to the partnership capital, the said appellant did not allow him to hold office in the U.P. Construction Company and his authority to deal with the Bureau of Public Highways was revoked by the appellant.32

As the record stands, We cannot say, therefore, that the decis of the trial court is not sustained by the evidence of record as warrant its reverw.

Since the defendantappellant was at fauh, the tral court properly ordered him to reimburse the plaintiff-appellee whatever amount latter had invested in or spent for the partnership on account of construction projects.

How much did the appellee spend in the construction projects question?

It appears that although the partnership agreement stated the capital of the partnership is P100,000.00 of which each part shall contribute to the partnership the amount of P50,000.00 cash 33 the partners of the U.P. Construction Company did contribute their agreed share in the capitalization of the enterprise in lump sums of P50,000.00 each. Aside from the initial amount P40,000.00 put up by the appellee in October, 1956, 34 the partners' investments took, the form of cash advances coveting expenses of the construction projects as they were incurred. Since the determination of the amount of the disbursements which each of them had made for the construction projects require an examination of the books of account, the trial court appointed two commissioners, designated by the parties, "to examine the books of account of the defendant regarding the U.P. Construction Company and his personal account with particular reference to the Public Works contract for the construction of the Ganyangan-Bato Section, Pagadian-Zamboanga City Road and five (5) Bridges in Malangas-Ganyangan Road, including the payments received by defendant from the Bureau of Public Highways by virtue of the two projects above mentioned, the disbursements or disposition made by defendant of the portion thereof released to him by the Philippine National Bank and in whose account these funds are deposited . 35

In due time, the loners so appointed, 36 submitted their report 37 they indicated the items wherein they are in agreement, as well as their points of disagreement.

In the commissioners' report, the appellant's advances are listed under Credits; the money received from the firm, under Debits; and the resulting monthly investment standings of the partners, under Balances. The commissioners are agreed that at the end of December, 1957, the appellee had a balance of P8,242.39. 38 It is in their respective adjustments of the capital account of the appellee that the commissioners had disagreed.

Mr. Ablaza, designated by the appellant, would want to charge the appellee with the sum of P24,239.48, representing the checks isssued by the appellant, 39 and encashed by the appellee or his brother, Uy Han so that the appellee would owe the partnership the amount of P15,997.09.

Mr. Tayag, designated by the appellee, upon the other hand, would credit the appellee the following additional amounts:

(1) P7,497.80 — items omitted from the books of partnership but recognized and charged to Miscellaneous Expenses by Mr. Ablaza;

(2) P65,103.77 — payrolls paid by the appellee in the amount P128,103.77 less payroll remittances from the appellant in amount of P63,000.00; and

(3) P26,027.04 other expeses incurred by the appellee at construction site.

With respect to the amount of P24,239.48, claimed by appellant, we are hereunder adopting the findings of the trial which we find to be in accord with the evidence:

To enhance defendant's theory that he should be credited P24,239.48, he presented checks allegedly given to plaintiff and the latter's brother, Uy Han, marked as Exhibits 2 to 11. However, defendant admitted that said cheeks were not entered nor record their books of account, as expenses for and in behalf of partnership or its affairs. On the other hand, Uy Han testified that of the cheeks he received were exchange for cash, while other used in the purchase of spare parts requisitioned by defendant. This testimony was not refuted to the satisfaction of the Court, considering that Han's explanation thereof is the more plausible because if they were employed in the prosecution of the partners projects, the corresponding disbursements would have certainly been recorded in its books, which is not the case. Taking into account defendant is the custodian of the books of account, his failure to so enter therein the alleged disbursements, accentuates the falsity of his claim on this point. 40

Besides, as further noted by the trial court, the report Commissioner Ablaza is unreliable in view of his proclivity to favor the appellant and because of the inaccurate accounting procedure adopted by him in auditing the books of account of the partnership unlike Mr. Tayag's report which inspires faith and credence. 41

As explained by Mr. Tayag, the amount of P7,497.80 represen expenses paid by the appellee out of his personal funds which not been entered in the books of the partnership but which been recognized and conceded to by the auditor designated by the appellant who included the said amount under Expenses. 42

The explanation of Mr. Tayag on the inclusion of the amount of P65,103.77 is likewise clear and convincing. 43

As for the sum of of P26,027.04, the same represents the expenses which the appelle paid in connection withe the projects and not entered in the books of the partnership since all vouchers and receipts were sent to the Manila office which were under the control of the appellant. However, officer which were under the control of the appellant. However, a list of these expenses are incorporated in Exhibits ZZ, ZZ-1 to ZZ-4.

In resume', the appelllee's credit balance would be as follows:

xxxxx

At the trial, the appellee presented a claim for the amounts of P3,917.39 and P4,665.00 which he also advanced for the construction projects but which were not included in the Commissioner's Report. 44

Appellee's total investments in the partnership would, therefore, be:xxxx

Regarding the award of P200,000.00 as his share in the unrealized profits of the partnership, the appellant contends that the findings of the trial court that the amount of P400,000.00 as reasonable profits of the partnership venture is without any basis and is not supported by the evidence. The appemnt maintains that the lower court, in making its determination, did not take into consideration the great risks involved in business operations involving as it does the completion of the projects within a definite period of time, in the face of adverse and often unpredictable circumstances, as well as the fact that the appellee, who was in charge of the projects in the field, contributed in a large measure to the failure of the partnership to realize such profits by his field management.

This argument must be overruled in the light of the law and evidence on the matter. Under Article 2200 of the Civil Code, indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain. In other words lucrum cessans is also a basis for indemnification.

Has the appellee failed to make profits because of appellant's breach of contract?

There is no doubt that the contracting business is a profitable one and that the U.P. Construction Company derived some profits from' co io oa ects its sub ntracts in the construction of the road and bridges projects its deficient working capital and the juggling of its funds by the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant's claim, the partnership showed some profits during the period from July 2, 1956 to December 31, 1957. If the Profit and Loss Statement 45 showed a net loss of P134,019.43, this was primarily due to the confusing accounting method employed by the auditor who intermixed h and accthe cas ruamethod of accounting and the erroneous inclusion of certain items, like personal expenses of the appellant and afteged extraordinary losses due to an accidental plane crash, in the operating expenses of the partnership, Corrected, the Profit and Loss Statement would indicate a net profit of P41,611.28.

For the period from January 1, 1958 to September 30, 1959, the partnership admittedly made a net profit of P52,943.89. 46

Besides, as We have heretofore pointed out, the appellant received from the Bureau of Public Highways, in payment of the zonstruction projects in question, the amount of P1,047,181.01 47 and disbursed the amount of P952,839.77, 48 leaving an unaccounted balance of P94,342.24. Obviously, this amount is also part of the profits of the partnership.

During the trial of this case, it was discovered that the appellant had money and credits receivable froin the projects in question, in the custody of the Bureau of Public Highways, in the amount of P128,669.75, representing the 10% retention of said projects.49 After the trial of this case, it was shown that the total retentions Wucted from the appemnt amounted to P145,358.00. 50 Surely, these retained amounts also form part of the profits of the partnership.

Had the appellant not been remiss in his obligations as partner and as prime contractor of the construction projects in question as he was bound to perform pursuant to the partnership and subcontract agreements, and considering the fact that the total contract amount of these two projects is P2,327,335.76, it is reasonable to expect that the partnership would have earned much more than the P334,255.61 We have hereinabove indicated. The award, therefore, made by the trial court of the amount of P200,000.00, as compensatory damages, is not speculative, but based on reasonable estimate.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision appealed from, the said decision is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellant, it being understood that the liability mentioned herein shall be home by the estate of the deceased Bartolome Puzon, represented in this instance by the administrator thereof, Franco Puzon.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-59956 October 31, 1984

ISABELO MORAN, JR., petitioner, vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIANO E. PECSON, respondents.

 

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals which ordered petitioner Isabelo Moran, Jr. to pay damages to respondent Mariano E, Pecson.

As found by the respondent Court of Appeals, the undisputed facts indicate that: têñ.£îhqwâ£

xxx xxx xxx

... on February 22, 1971 Pecson and Moran entered into an agreement whereby both would contribute P15,000 each for the purpose of printing 95,000 posters (featuring the delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention), with Moran actually supervising the work; that Pecson would receive a commission of P l,000 a month starting on April 15, 1971 up to December 15, 1971; that on December 15, 1971, a liquidation of the accounts in the distribution and printing of the 95,000 posters would be made, that Pecson gave Moran P10,000 for which the latter issued a receipt; that only a few posters were printed; that on or about May 28, 1971, Moran executed in favor of Pecson a promissory note in the amount of P20,000 payable in two equal installments (P10,000 payable on or before June 15, 1971 and P10,000 payable on or before June 30, 1971), the whole sum becoming due upon default in the payment of the first installment on the date due, complete with the costs of collection.

Private respondent Pecson filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for the recovery of a sum of money and alleged in his complaint three (3) causes of action, namely: (1) on the alleged partnership agreement, the return of his contribution of P10,000.00, payment of his share in the profits that the partnership would have earned, and, payment of unpaid commission; (2) on the alleged promissory note, payment of the sum of P20,000.00; and, (3) moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

After the trial, the Court of First Instance held that: têñ.£îhqwâ£

From the evidence presented it is clear in the mind of the court that by virtue of the partnership agreement entered into by the parties-plaintiff and defendant the plaintiff did contribute P10,000.00, and another sum of P7,000.00 for the Voice of the Veteran or Delegate Magazine. Of the expected 95,000 copies of the posters, the defendant was able to print 2,000 copies only authorized of which, however, were sold at P5.00 each. Nothing more was done after this and it can be said that the venture did not really get

off the ground. On the other hand, the plaintiff failed to give his full contribution of P15,000.00. Thus, each party is entitled to rescind the contract which right is implied in reciprocal obligations under Article 1385 of the Civil Code whereunder 'rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contract ...

WHEREFORE, the court hereby renders judgment ordering defendant Isabelo C. Moran, Jr. to return to plaintiff Mariano E. Pecson the sum of P17,000.00, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint on June 19, 1972, and the costs of the suit.

For insufficiency of evidence, the counterclaim is hereby dismissed.

From this decision, both parties appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals. The latter likewise rendered a decision against the petitioner. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: têñ.£îhqwâ£

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE, and a new one is hereby rendered, ordering defendant-appellant Isabelo C. Moran, Jr. to pay plaintiff- appellant Mariano E. Pecson:

(a) Forty-seven thousand five hundred (P47,500) (the amount that could have accrued to Pecson under their agreement);

(b) Eight thousand (P8,000), (the commission for eight months);

(c) Seven thousand (P7,000) (as a return of Pecson's investment for the Veteran's Project);

(d) Legal interest on (a), (b) and (c) from the date the complaint was filed (up to the time payment is made)

The petitioner contends that the respondent Court of Appeals decided questions of substance in a way not in accord with law and with Supreme Court decisions when it committed the following errors:

I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER ISABELO C. MORAN, JR. LIABLE TO RESPONDENT MARIANO E. PECSON IN THE SUM OF P47,500 AS THE SUPPOSED EXPECTED PROFITS DUE HIM.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER ISABELO C. MORAN, JR. LIABLE TO RESPONDENT MARIANO E. PECSON IN THE SUM OF P8,000, AS SUPPOSED COMMISSION IN THE PARTNERSHIP ARISING OUT OF PECSON'S INVESTMENT.

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING PETITIONER ISABELO C. MORAN, JR. LIABLE TO RESPONDENT MARIANO E. PECSON IN THE SUM OF P7,000 AS A SUPPOSED RETURN OF INVESTMENT IN A MAGAZINE VENTURE.

IV

ASSUMING WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT PETITIONER IS AT ALL LIABLE FOR ANY AMOUNT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT EVEN OFFSET PAYMENTS ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED BY PECSON FROM MORAN.

V

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE PETITIONER'S COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

The first question raised in this petition refers to the award of P47,500.00 as the private respondent's share in the unrealized profits of the partnership. The petitioner contends that the award is highly speculative. The petitioner maintains that the respondent court did not take into account the great risks involved in the business undertaking.

We agree with the petitioner that the award of speculative damages has no basis in fact and law.

There is no dispute over the nature of the agreement between the petitioner and the private respondent. It is a contract of partnership. The latter in his complaint alleged that he was induced by the petitioner to enter into a partnership with him under the following terms and conditions: têñ.£îhqwâ£

1. That the partnership will print colored posters of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention;

2. That they will invest the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) each;

3. That they will print Ninety Five Thousand (95,000) copies of the said posters;

4. That plaintiff will receive a commission of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) a month starting April 15, 1971 up to December 15, 1971;

5. That upon the termination of the partnership on December 15, 1971, a liquidation of the account pertaining to the distribution and printing of the said 95,000 posters shall be made.

The petitioner on the other hand admitted in his answer the existence of the partnership.

The rule is, when a partner who has undertaken to contribute a sum of money fails to do so, he becomes a debtor of the partnership for whatever he may have promised to contribute (Art. 1786, Civil Code) and for interests and damages from the time he should have complied with his obligation (Art. 1788, Civil Code). Thus in Uy v. Puzon (79 SCRA 598), which interpreted Art. 2200 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, we allowed a total of P200,000.00 compensatory damages in favor of the appellee because the appellant therein was remiss in his obligations as a partner and as prime contractor of the construction projects in question. This case was decided on a particular set of facts. We awarded compensatory damages in the Uy case because there was a finding that the constructing business is a profitable one and that the UP construction company derived some profits from its contractors in the construction of roads and bridges despite its deficient capital." Besides, there was evidence to show that the partnership made some profits during the periods from July 2, 1956 to December 31, 1957 and from January 1, 1958 up to September 30, 1959. The profits on two government contracts worth P2,327,335.76 were not speculative. In the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever that the partnership between the petitioner and the private respondent would have been a profitable venture. In fact, it was a failure doomed from the start. There is therefore no basis for the award of speculative damages in favor of the private respondent.

Furthermore, in the Uy case, only Puzon failed to give his full contribution while Uy contributed much more than what was expected of him. In this case, however, there was mutual breach. Private respondent failed to give his entire contribution in the amount of P15,000.00. He contributed only P10,000.00. The petitioner likewise failed to give any of the amount expected of him. He further failed to comply with the agreement to print 95,000 copies of the posters. Instead, he printed only 2,000 copies.

Article 1797 of the Civil Code provides: têñ.£îhqwâ£

The losses and profits shall be distributed in conformity with the agreement. If only the share of each partner in the profits has been agreed upon, the share of each in the losses shall be in the same proportion.

Being a contract of partnership, each partner must share in the profits and losses of the venture. That is the essence of a partnership. And even with an assurance made by one of the partners that they would earn a huge amount of profits, in the absence of fraud, the other partner cannot claim a right to recover the highly speculative profits. It is a rare business venture guaranteed to give 100% profits. In this case, on an investment of P15,000.00, the respondent was supposed to earn a guaranteed P1,000.00 a month for eight months and around P142,500.00 on 95,000 posters costing P2.00 each but 2,000 of which were sold at P5.00 each. The fantastic nature of expected profits is obvious. We have to take various factors into account. The failure of the Commission on Elections to proclaim all the 320 candidates of the Constitutional Convention on time was a major factor. The petitioner undesirable his best business judgment and felt that it would be a losing venture to go on with the printing of the agreed 95,000 copies of the posters. Hidden risks in any business venture have to be considered.

It does not follow however that the private respondent is not entitled to recover any amount from the petitioner. The records show that the private respondent gave P10,000.00 to the petitioner. The latter used this amount for the printing of 2,000 posters at a cost of P2.00 per poster or a total printing cost of P4,000.00. The records further show that the 2,000 copies were sold at P5.00 each. The gross income therefore was P10,000.00. Deducting the printing costs of P4,000.00 from the gross income of P10,000.00 and with no evidence on the cost of distribution, the net profits amount to only P6,000.00. This net profit of P6,000.00 should be divided between the petitioner and the private respondent. And since only P4,000.00 was undesirable by the petitioner in printing the 2,000 copies, the remaining P6,000.00 should therefore be returned to the private respondent.

Relative to the second alleged error, the petitioner submits that the award of P8,000.00 as Pecson's supposed commission has no justifiable basis in law.

Again, we agree with the petitioner.

The partnership agreement stipulated that the petitioner would give the private respondent a monthly commission of Pl,000.00 from April 15, 1971 to December 15, 1971 for a total of eight (8) monthly commissions. The agreement does not state the basis of the commission. The payment of the commission could only have been predicated on relatively extravagant profits. The parties could not have intended the giving of a commission inspite of loss or failure of the venture. Since the venture was a failure, the private respondent is not entitled to the P8,000.00 commission.

Anent the third assigned error, the petitioner maintains that the respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding him liable to the private respondent in the sum of P7,000.00 as a supposed return of investment in a magazine venture.

In awarding P7,000.00 to the private respondent as his supposed return of investment in the "Voice of the Veterans" magazine venture, the respondent court ruled that: têñ.£îhqwâ£

xxx xxx xxx

... Moran admittedly signed the promissory note of P20,000 in favor of Pecson. Moran does not question the due execution of said note. Must Moran therefore pay the amount of P20,000? The evidence indicates that the P20,000 was assigned by Moran to cover the following: têñ.£îhqwâ£

(a) P 7,000 — the amount of the PNB check given by Pecson to Moran representing Pecson's investment in Moran's other project (the publication and printing of the 'Voice of the Veterans');

(b) P10,000 — to cover the return of Pecson's contribution in the project of the Posters;

(c) P3,000 — representing Pecson's commission for three months (April, May, June, 1971).

Of said P20,000 Moran has to pay P7,000 (as a return of Pecson's investment for the Veterans' project, for this project never left the ground) ...

As a rule, the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this Court (Amigo v. Teves, 96 Phil. 252), provided they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence (Alsua-Betts v. Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA 332). However, this rule admits of certain exceptions. Thus, inCarolina Industries Inc. v. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., et al., (97 SCRA 734), we held that this Court retains the power to review and rectify the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals when (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken absurd and impossible; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and (5) when the

court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee.

In this case, there is misapprehension of facts. The evidence of the private respondent himself shows that his investment in the "Voice of Veterans" project amounted to only P3,000.00. The remaining P4,000.00 was the amount of profit that the private respondent expected to receive.

The records show the following exhibits- têñ.£îhqwâ£

E — Xerox copy of PNB Manager's Check No. 234265 dated March 22, 1971 in favor of defendant. Defendant admitted the authenticity of this check and of his receipt of the proceeds thereof (t.s.n., pp. 3-4, Nov. 29, 1972). This exhibit is being offered for the purpose of showing plaintiff's capital investment in the printing of the "Voice of the Veterans" for which he was promised a fixed profit of P8,000. This investment of P6,000.00 and the promised profit of P8,000 are covered by defendant's promissory note for P14,000 dated March 31, 1971 marked by defendant as Exhibit 2 (t.s.n., pp. 20-21, Nov. 29, 1972), and by plaintiff as Exhibit P. Later, defendant returned P3,000.00 of the P6,000.00 investment thereby proportionately reducing the promised profit to P4,000. With the balance of P3,000 (capital) and P4,000 (promised profit), defendant signed and executed the promissory note for P7,000 marked Exhibit 3 for the defendant and Exhibit M for plaintiff. Of this P7,000, defendant paid P4,000 representing full return of the capital investment and P1,000 partial payment of the promised profit. The P3,000 balance of the promised profit was made part consideration of the P20,000 promissory note (t.s.n., pp. 22-24, Nov. 29, 1972). It is, therefore, being presented to show the consideration for the P20,000 promissory note.

F — Xerox copy of PNB Manager's check dated May 29, 1971 for P7,000 in favor of defendant. The authenticity of the check and his receipt of the proceeds thereof were admitted by the defendant (t.s.n., pp. 3-4, Nov. 29, 1972). This P 7,000 is part consideration, and in cash, of the P20,000 promissory note (t.s.n., p. 25, Nov. 29, 1972), and it is being presented to show the consideration for the P20,000 note and the existence and validity of the obligation.

xxx xxx xxx

L-Book entitled "Voice of the Veterans" which is being offered for the purpose of showing the subject matter of the other partnership agreement and in which plaintiff invested the P6,000 (Exhibit E) which, together with the promised profit of P8,000 made up for the consideration of the P14,000

promissory note (Exhibit 2; Exhibit P). As explained in connection with Exhibit E. the P3,000 balance of the promised profit was later made part consideration of the P20,000 promissory note.

M-Promissory note for P7,000 dated March 30, 1971. This is also defendant's Exhibit E. This document is being offered for the purpose of further showing the transaction as explained in connection with Exhibits E and L.

N-Receipt of plaintiff dated March 30, 1971 for the return of his P3,000 out of his capital investment of P6,000 (Exh. E) in the P14,000 promissory note (Exh. 2; P). This is also defendant's Exhibit 4. This document is being offered in support of plaintiff's explanation in connection with Exhibits E, L, and M to show the transaction mentioned therein.

xxx xxx xxx

P-Promissory note for P14,000.00. This is also defendant's Exhibit 2. It is being offered for the purpose of showing the transaction as explained in connection with Exhibits E, L, M, and N above.

Explaining the above-quoted exhibits, respondent Pecson testified that: têñ.£îhqwâ£

Q During the pre-trial of this case, Mr. Pecson, the defendant presented a promissory note in the amount of P14,000.00 which has been marked as Exhibit 2. Do you know this promissory note?

A Yes, sir.

Q What is this promissory note, in connection with your transaction with the defendant?

A This promissory note is for the printing of the "Voice of the Veterans".

Q What is this "Voice of the Veterans", Mr. Pecson?

A It is a book.têñ.£îhqwâ£

(T.S.N., p. 19, Nov. 29, 1972)

Q And what does the amount of P14,000.00 indicated in the promissory note, Exhibit 2, represent?

A It represents the P6,000.00 cash which I gave to Mr. Moran, as evidenced by the Philippine National Bank Manager's check and the P8,000.00 profit assured me by Mr. Moran which I will derive from the printing of this "Voice of the Veterans" book.

Q You said that the P6,000.00 of this P14,000.00 is covered by, a Manager's check. I show you Exhibit E, is this the Manager's check that mentioned?

A Yes, sir.

Q What happened to this promissory note of P14,000.00 which you said represented P6,000.00 of your investment and P8,000.00 promised profits?

A Latter, Mr. Moran returned to me P3,000.00 which represented one-half (1/2) of the P6,000.00 capital I gave to him.

Q As a consequence of the return by Mr. Moran of one-half (1/2) of the P6,000.00 capital you gave to him, what happened to the promised profit of P8,000.00?

A It was reduced to one-half (1/2) which is P4,000.00.

Q Was there any document executed by Mr. Moran in connection with the Balance of P3,000.00 of your capital investment and the P4,000.00 promised profits?

A Yes, sir, he executed a promissory note.

Q I show you a promissory note in the amount of P7,000.00 dated March 30, 1971 which for purposes of Identification I request the same to be marked as Exhibit M. . .

Court têñ.£îhqwâ£

Mark it as Exhibit M.

Q (continuing) is this the promissory note which you said was executed by Mr. Moran in connection with your transaction regarding the printing of the "Voice of the Veterans"?

A Yes, sir. (T.S.N., pp. 20-22, Nov. 29, 1972).

Q What happened to this promissory note executed by Mr. Moran, Mr. Pecson?

A Mr. Moran paid me P4,000.00 out of the P7,000.00 as shown by the promissory note.

Q Was there a receipt issued by you covering this payment of P4,000.00 in favor of Mr. Moran?

A Yes, sir.

(T.S.N., p. 23, Nov. 29, 1972).

Q You stated that Mr. Moran paid the amount of P4,000.00 on account of the P7,000.00 covered by the promissory note, Exhibit M. What does this P4,000.00 covered by Exhibit N represent?

A This P4,000.00 represents the P3,000.00 which he has returned of my P6,000.00 capital investment and the P1,000.00 represents partial payment of the P4,000.00 profit that was promised to me by Mr. Moran.

Q And what happened to the balance of P3,000.00 under the promissory note, Exhibit M?

A The balance of P3,000.00 and the rest of the profit was applied as part of the consideration of the promissory note of P20,000.00.

(T.S.N., pp. 23-24, Nov. 29, 1972).

The respondent court erred when it concluded that the project never left the ground because the project did take place. Only it failed. It was the private respondent himself who presented a copy of the book entitled "Voice of the Veterans" in the lower court as Exhibit "L". Therefore, it would be error to state that the project never took place and on this basis decree the return of the private respondent's investment.

As already mentioned, there are risks in any business venture and the failure of the undertaking cannot entirely be blamed on the managing partner alone, specially if the latter exercised his best business judgment, which seems to be true in this case. In view of the foregoing, there is no reason to pass upon the fourth and fifth assignments of errors raised by the petitioner. We likewise find no valid basis for the grant of the counterclaim.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered ordering the petitioner Isabelo Moran, Jr., to pay private respondent Mariano Pecson SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS representing the amount of the private respondent's contribution to the partnership but which remained unused; and THREE THOUSAND (P3,000.00) PESOS representing one half (1/2) of the net profits gained by the partnership in the sale of the two thousand (2,000) copies of the posters, with interests at the legal rate on both amounts from the date the complaint was filed until full payment is made.

SO ORDERED.1äwphï1.ñët

G.R. No. L-31684 June 28, 1973

EVANGELISTA & CO., DOMINGO C. EVANGELISTA, JR., CONCHITA B. NAVARRO and LEONARDA ATIENZA ABAD SABTOS, petitioners, vs.ESTRELLA ABAD SANTOS, respondent.

On October 9, 1954 a co-partnership was formed under the name of "Evangelista & Co." On June 7, 1955 the Articles of Co-partnership was amended as to include herein respondent, Estrella Abad Santos, as industrial partner, with herein petitioners Domingo C. Evangelista, Jr., Leonardo Atienza Abad Santos and Conchita P. Navarro, the original capitalist partners, remaining in that capacity, with a contribution of P17,500 each. The amended Articles provided, inter alia, that "the contribution of Estrella Abad Santos consists of her industry being an industrial partner", and that the profits and losses "shall be divided and distributed among the partners ... in the proportion of 70% for the first three partners, Domingo C. Evangelista, Jr., Conchita P. Navarro and Leonardo Atienza Abad Santos to be divided among them equally; and 30% for the fourth partner Estrella Abad Santos."

On December 17, 1963 herein respondent filed suit against the three other partners in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that the partnership, which was also made a party-defendant, had been paying dividends to the partners except to her; and that notwithstanding her demands the defendants had refused and continued to refuse and let her examine the partnership books or to give her information regarding the partnership affairs to pay her any share in the dividends declared by the partnership. She therefore prayed that the defendants be ordered to render accounting to her of the partnership business and to pay her corresponding share in the partnership profits after such accounting, plus attorney's fees and costs.

The defendants, in their answer, denied ever having declared dividends or distributed profits of the partnership; denied likewise that the plaintiff ever demanded that she be allowed to examine the partnership books; and byway of affirmative defense alleged that the amended Articles of Co-partnership did not express the true agreement of the parties, which was that the plaintiff was not an industrial partner; that she did not in fact contribute industry to the partnership; and that her share of 30% was to be based on the profits which might be realized by the partnership only until full payment of the loan which it had obtained in December, 1955 from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation in the sum of P30,000, for which the plaintiff had signed a promisory note as co-maker and mortgaged her property as security.

The parties are in agreement that the main issue in this case is "whether the plaintiff-appellee (respondent here) is an industrial partner as claimed by her or merely a profit sharer entitled to 30% of the net profits that may be realized by the partnership from June 7, 1955 until the mortgage loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation shall be fully paid, as claimed by appellants (herein petitioners)." On that issue the Court of First Instance found for the plaintiff and rendered judgement "declaring her an industrial partner of Evangelista & Co.; ordering the defendants to render an accounting of the business operations of the (said) partnership ... from June 7, 1955; to pay the plaintiff such amounts as may be due as her share in the partnership profits and/or dividends after such an accounting has been properly made; to pay plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of P2,000.00 and the costs of this suit."

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which thereafter affirmed judgments of the court a quo.

In the petition before Us the petitioners have assigned the following errors:

I. The Court of Appeals erred in the finding that the respondent is an industrial partner of Evangelista & Co., notwithstanding the admitted fact that since 1954 and until after promulgation of the decision of the appellate court the said respondent was one of the judges of the City Court of Manila, and despite its findings that respondent had been paid for services allegedly contributed by her to the partnership. In this connection the Court of Appeals erred:

(A) In finding that the "amended Articles of Co-partnership," Exhibit "A" is conclusive evidence that respondent was in fact made an industrial partner of Evangelista & Co.

(B) In not finding that a portion of respondent's testimony quoted in the decision proves that said respondent did not bind herself to contribute her industry, and she could not, and in fact did not, because she was one of the judges of the City Court of Manila since 1954.

(C) In finding that respondent did not in fact contribute her industry, despite the appellate court's own finding that she has been paid for the services allegedly rendered by her, as well as for the loans of money made by her to the partnership.

II. The lower court erred in not finding that in any event the respondent was lawfully excluded from, and deprived of, her alleged share, interests and participation, as an alleged industrial partner, in the partnership Evangelista & Co., and its profits or net income.

III. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming in toto the decision of the trial court whereby respondent was declared an industrial partner of the petitioner, and petitioners were ordered to render an accounting of the business operation of the partnership from June 7, 1955, and to pay the respondent her alleged share in the net profits of the partnership plus the sum of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs of the suit, instead of dismissing respondent's complaint, with costs, against the respondent.

It is quite obvious that the questions raised in the first assigned errors refer to the facts as found by the Court of Appeals. The evidence presented by the parties as the trial in support of their respective positions on the issue of whether or not the respondent was an industrial partner was thoroughly analyzed by the Court of Appeals on its decision, to the extent of reproducing verbatim therein the lengthy testimony of the witnesses.

It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been commited by the lower court. It should be observed, in this regard, that the Court of Appeals did not hold that the Articles of Co-partnership, identified in the record as Exhibit "A", was conclusive evidence that the respondent was an industrial partner of the said company, but considered it together with other factors, consisting of both testimonial and documentary evidences, in arriving at the factual conclusion expressed in the decision.

The findings of the Court of Appeals on the various points raised in the first assignment of error are hereunder reproduced if only to demonstrate that the same were made after a through analysis of then evidence, and hence are beyond this Court's power of review.

The aforequoted findings of the lower Court are assailed under Appellants' first assigned error, wherein it is pointed out that "Appellee's documentary evidence does not conclusively prove that appellee was in fact admitted by appellants as industrial partner of Evangelista & Co." and that "The grounds relied upon by the lower Court are untenable" (Pages 21 and 26, Appellant's Brief).

The first point refers to Exhibit A, B, C, K, K-1, J, N and S, appellants' complaint being that "In finding that the appellee is an industrial partner of appellant Evangelista & Co., herein referred to as the partnership — the lower court relied mainly on the appellee's documentary evidence, entirely disregarding facts and circumstances established by appellants" evidence which contradict the said finding' (Page 21, Appellants' Brief). The lower court could not have done otherwise but rely on the exhibits just mentioned, first, because appellants have admitted their genuineness and due execution, hence they were admitted without objection by the lower court when appellee rested her case and, secondly the said exhibits indubitably show the appellee is an industrial partner of appellant company. Appellants are virtually estopped from attempting to detract from the probative force of the said exhibits because they all bear the imprint of their knowledge and consent, and there is no credible showing that they ever protested against or opposed their contents prior of the filing of their answer to appellee's complaint. As a matter of fact, all the appellant Evangelista, Jr., would have us believe — as against the cumulative force of appellee's aforesaid documentary evidence — is the appellee's Exhibit "A", as confirmed and corroborated by the other exhibits already mentioned, does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto, the real understanding between them being the appellee would be merely a profit sharer entitled to 30% of the net profits that may be realized between the partners from June 7, 1955, until the mortgage loan of P30,000.00 to be obtained from the RFC shall have been fully paid. This version, however, is discredited not only by the aforesaid documentary evidence brought forward by the appellee, but also by the fact that from June 7, 1955 up to the filing of their answer to the complaint on February 8, 1964 — or a period of over eight (8) years — appellants did nothing to correct the alleged false agreement of the parties contained in Exhibit "A". It is thus reasonable to suppose that, had appellee not filed the present action, appellants would not have advanced this obvious afterthought that Exhibit "A" does not express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto.

At pages 32-33 of appellants' brief, they also make much of the argument that 'there is an overriding fact which proves that the parties to the Amended Articles of Partnership, Exhibit "A", did not contemplate to make the appellee Estrella Abad Santos, an industrial partner of Evangelista & Co. It is an admitted fact that since before the execution of the amended articles of partnership, Exhibit "A", the appellee Estrella Abad Santos has been, and up to the present time still is, one of the judges of the City Court of Manila, devoting all her time to the performance of the duties of her public office. This fact proves beyond peradventure that it was never contemplated between the parties, for she could not lawfully contribute her full time and industry which is the obligation of an industrial partner pursuant to Art. 1789 of the Civil Code.

The Court of Appeals then proceeded to consider appellee's testimony on this point, quoting it in the decision, and then concluded as follows:

One cannot read appellee's testimony just quoted without gaining the very definite impression that, even as she was and still is a Judge of the City Court of Manila, she has rendered services for appellants without which they would not have had the wherewithal to operate the business for which appellant company was organized. Article 1767 of the New Civil Code which provides that "By contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves, to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves, 'does not specify the kind of industry that a partner may thus contribute, hence the said services may legitimately be considered as appellee's contribution to the common fund. Another article of the same Code relied upon appellants reads:

'ART. 1789. An industrial partner cannot engage in business for himself, unless the partnership expressly permits him to do so; and if he should do so, the capitalist partners may either exclude him from the firm or avail themselves of the benefits which he may have obtained in violation of this provision, with a right to damages in either case.'

It is not disputed that the provision against the industrial partner engaging in business for himself seeks to prevent any conflict of interest between the industrial partner and the partnership, and to insure faithful compliance by said partner with this prestation. There is no pretense, however, even on the part of the appellee is engaged in any business antagonistic to that of appellant company, since being a Judge of one of the branches of the City

Court of Manila can hardly be characterized as a business. That appellee has faithfully complied with her prestation with respect to appellants is clearly shown by the fact that it was only after filing of the complaint in this case and the answer thereto appellants exercised their right of exclusion under the codal art just mentioned by alleging in their Supplemental Answer dated June 29, 1964 — or after around nine (9) years from June 7, 1955 — subsequent to the filing of defendants' answer to the complaint, defendants reached an agreement whereby the herein plaintiff been excluded from, and deprived of, her alleged share, interests or participation, as an alleged industrial partner, in the defendant partnership and/or in its net profits or income, on the ground plaintiff has never contributed her industry to the partnership, instead she has been and still is a judge of the City Court (formerly Municipal Court) of the City of Manila, devoting her time to performance of her duties as such judge and enjoying the privilege and emoluments appertaining to the said office, aside from teaching in law school in Manila, without the express consent of the herein defendants' (Record On Appeal, pp. 24-25). Having always knows as a appellee as a City judge even before she joined appellant company on June 7, 1955 as an industrial partner, why did it take appellants many yearn before excluding her from said company as aforequoted allegations? And how can they reconcile such exclusive with their main theory that appellee has never been such a partner because "The real agreement evidenced by Exhibit "A" was to grant the appellee a share of 30% of the net profits which the appellant partnership may realize from June 7, 1955, until the mortgage of P30,000.00 obtained from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporal shall have been fully paid." (Appellants Brief, p. 38).

What has gone before persuades us to hold with the lower Court that appellee is an industrial partner of appellant company, with the right to demand for a formal accounting and to receive her share in the net profit that may result from such an accounting, which right appellants take exception under their second assigned error. Our said holding is based on the following article of the New Civil Code:

'ART. 1899. Any partner shall have the right to a formal account as to partnership affairs:

(1) If he is wrongfully excluded from the partnership business or possession of its property by his co-partners;

(2) If the right exists under the terms of any agreement;

(3) As provided by article 1807;

(4) Whenever other circumstance render it just and reasonable.

We find no reason in this case to depart from the rule which limits this Court's appellate jurisdiction to reviewing only errors of law, accepting as conclusive the factual findings of the lower court upon its own assessment of the evidence.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

G.R. No. L-5236             January 10, 1910

PEDRO MARTINEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ONG PONG CO and ONG LAY, defendants. ONG PONG CO., appellant.

On the 12th of December, 1900, the plaintiff herein delivered P1,500 to the defendants who, in a private document, acknowledged that they had received the same with the agreement, as stated by them, "that we are to invest the amount in a store, the profits or losses of which we are to divide with the former, in equal shares."

The plaintiff filed a complaint on April 25, 1907, in order to compel the defendants to render him an accounting of the partnership as agreed to, or else to refund him the P1,500 that he had given them for the said purpose. Ong Pong Co alone appeared to answer the complaint; he admitted the fact of the agreement and the delivery to him and to Ong Lay of the P1,500 for the purpose aforesaid, but he alleged that Ong Lay, who was then deceased, was the one who had managed the business, and that nothing had resulted therefrom save the loss of the capital of P1,500, to which loss the plaintiff agreed.

The judge of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila who tried the case ordered Ong Pong Co to return to the plaintiff one-half of the said capital of P1,500 which, together with Ong Lay, he had received from the plaintiff, to wit, P750, plus P90 as one-half of the profits, calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the six months that the store was supposed to have been open, both sums in Philippine currency, making a total of P840, with legal interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, from the 12th of June, 1901, when the business terminated and on which date he ought to have returned the said amount to the plaintiff, until the full payment thereof with costs.

From this judgment Ong Pong Co appealed to this court, and assigned the following errors:

1. For not having taken into consideration the fact that the reason for the closing of the store was the ejectment from the premises occupied by it.

2. For not having considered the fact that there were losses.

3. For holding that there should have been profits.

4. For having applied article 1138 of the Civil Code.

5. and 6. For holding that the capital ought to have yielded profits, and that the latter should be calculated 12 per cent per annum; and

7. The findings of the ejectment.

As to the first assignment of error, the fact that the store was closed by virtue of ejectment proceedings is of no importance for the effects of the suit. The whole action is based upon the fact that the defendants received certain capital from the plaintiff for the purpose of organizing a company; they, according to the agreement, were to handle the said money and invest it in a store which was the object of the association; they, in the absence of a special agreement vesting in one sole person the management of the business, were the actual administrators thereof; as such administrators they were the agent of the company and incurred the liabilities peculiar to every agent, among which is that of rendering account to the principal of their transactions, and paying him everything they may have received by virtue of the mandatum. (Arts. 1695 and 1720, Civil Code.) Neither of them has rendered such account nor proven the losses referred to by Ong Pong Co; they are therefore obliged to refund the money that they received for the purpose of establishing the said store — the object of the association. This was the principal pronouncement of the judgment.

With regard to the second and third assignments of error, this court, like the court below, finds no evidence that the entire capital or any part thereof was lost. It is no evidence of such loss to aver, without proof, that the effects of the store were ejected. Even though this were proven, it could not be inferred therefrom that the ejectment was due to the fact that no rents were paid, and that the rent was not paid on account of the loss of the capital belonging to the enterprise.

With regard to the possible profits, the finding of the court below are based on the statements of the defendant Ong Pong Co, to the effect that "there were some profits, but not large ones." This court, however, does not find that the amount thereof has been proven, nor deem it possible to estimate them to be a certain sum, and for a given period of time; hence, it can not admit the estimate, made in the judgment, of 12 per cent per annum for the period of six months.

Inasmuch as in this case nothing appears other than the failure to fulfill an obligation on the part of a partner who acted as agent in receiving money for a given purpose, for which he has rendered no accounting, such agent is responsible only for the losses which, by a violation of the provisions of the law, he incurred. This being an obligation to pay in cash, there are no

other losses than the legal interest, which interest is not due except from the time of the judicial demand, or, in the present case, from the filing of the complaint. (Arts. 1108 and 1100, Civil Code.) We do not consider that article 1688 is applicable in this case, in so far as it provides "that the partnership is liable to every partner for the amounts he may have disbursed on account of the same and for the proper interest," for the reason that no other money than that contributed as is involved.

As in the partnership there were two administrators or agents liable for the above-named amount, article 1138 of the Civil Code has been invoked; this latter deals with debts of a partnership where the obligation is not a joint one, as is likewise provided by article 1723 of said code with respect to the liability of two or more agents with respect to the return of the money that they received from their principal. Therefore, the other errors assigned have not been committed.

In view of the foregoing judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, provided, however, that the defendant Ong Pong Co shall only pay the plaintiff the sum of P750 with the legal interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the time of the filing of the complaint, and the costs, without special ruling as to the costs of this instance. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-2484  April 11, 1906

JOHN FORTIS, Plaintiff-Appellee , vs. GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, Defendants-Appellants.

WILLARD, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

Plaintiff, an employee of defendants during the years 1900, 1901, and 1902, brought this action to recover a balance due him as salary for the year 1902. He alleged that he was entitled, as salary, to 5 per cent of the net profits of the business of the defendants for said year. The complaint also contained a cause of action for the sum of 600 pesos, money expended by plaintiff for the defendants during the year 1903. The court below, in its judgment, found that the contract had been made as claimed by the plaintiff; that 5 per cent of the net profits of the business for the year 1902 amounted to 26,378.68 pesos, Mexican currency; that the plaintiff had received on account of such salary 12,811.75 pesos, Mexican currency, and ordered judgment against the defendants for the sum 13,566.93 pesos, Mexican currency, with interest thereon from December 31, 1904. The court also ordered judgment against the defendants for the 600 pesos mentioned in the complaint, and intereat thereon. The total judgment rendered against the defendants in favor of the plaintiff, reduced to Philippine currency, amounted to P13,025.40. The defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they have brought the case here by bill of exceptions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

(1) The evidence is sufifcient to support the finding of the court below to the effect that the plaintiff worked for the defendants during the year 1902 under a contract by which he was to receive as compensation 5 per cent of the net profits of the business. The contract was made on the part of the defendants by Miguel Alonzo Gutierrez. By the provisions of the articles of partnership he was made one of the managers of the company, with full power to transact all of the business thereof. As such manager he had authority to make a contract of employment with the plaintiff.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(2) Before answering in the court below, the defendants presented a motion that the complaint be made more definite and certain. This motion was denied. To the order denying it the defendants excepted, and they have assigned as error such ruling of the court below. There is nothing in the record to show that the defendants were in any way prejudiced by this ruling of the court below. If it were error it was error without prejudice, and not ground for reversal. (Sec. 503, Code of Civil Procedure.)chanrobles virtual law library

(3) It is claimed by the appellants that the contract alleged in the complaint made the plaintiff a copartner of the defendants in the business which they were carrying on. This contention can not bo sustained. It was a mere contract of employnent. The plaintiff had no voice nor vote in the management of the affairs of the company. The fact that the compensation received by him was to be determined with reference to the profits made by the defendants in their business did not in any sense make by a partner therein. The articles of partnership between the defendants provided that the profits should be divided among the partners named in a certain proportion. The contract made between the plaintiff and the then manager of the defendant partnership did not in any way vary or modify this provision of the articles of partnership. The profits of the business could not be determined until all of the expenses had been paid. A part of the expenses to be paid for the year 1902 was the salary of the plaintiff. That salary had to be deducted before the net profits of the business, which were to be divided among the partners, could be ascertained. It was undoubtedly necessary in order to determine what the salary of the plaintiff was, to determine what the profits of the business were, after paying all of the expenses except his, but that determination was not the final determination of the net profits of the business. It was made for the purpose of fixing the basis upon which his compensation should be determined.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(4) It was no necessary that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants should be made in writing. (Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec, 1 1 Off. Gaz., 818, October 8, 1903.)chanrobles virtual law library

(5) It appearred that Miguel Alonzo Gutierrez, with whom the plaintiff had made the contract, had died prior to the trial of the action, and the defendants claim that by reasons of the provisions of section 383, paragraph 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiff could not be a witness at the trial. That paragraph provides that parties to an action against an executor or aministrator upon a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased person can not testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person. This action was

not brought against the administrator of Miguel Alonzo, nor was it brought upon a claim against his estate. It was brought against a partnership which was in existence at the time of the trial of the action, and which was juridical person. The fact that Miguel Alonzo had been a partner in this company, and that his interest therein might be affected by the result of this suit, is not sufficient to bring the case within the provisions of the section above cited.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(6) The plaintiff was allowed to testify against the objection and exception of the defendants, that he had been paid as salary for the year 1900 a part of the profits of the business. This evidence was competent for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the plaintiff as to the existence of the contract set out in the complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(7) The plaintiff was allowed to testify as to the contents of a certain letter written by Miguel Glutierrez, one of the partners in the defendant company, to Miguel Alonzo Gutierrez, another partner, which letter was read to plaintiff by Miguel Alonzo. It is not necessary to inquire whether the court committed an error in admitting this evidence. The case already made by the plaintiff was in itself sufficient to prove the contract without reference to this letter. The error, if any there were, was not prejudicial, and is not ground for revesal. (Sec. 503, Code of Civil Procedure.)chanrobles virtual law library

(8) For the purpose of proving what the profits of the defendants were for the year 1902, the plaintiff presented in evidence the ledger of defendants, which contained an entry made on the 31st of December, 1902, as follows:

Perdidas y Ganancias ...................................... a Varios Ps. 527,573.66 Utilidades liquidas obtenidas durante el ano y que abonamos conforme a la proporcion que hemos establecido segun el convenio de sociedad.

The defendant presented as a witness on, the subject of profits Miguel Gutierrez, one of the defendants, who testiffied, among other things, that there were no profits during the year 1902, but, on the contrary, that the company suffered considerable loss during that year. We do not think the evidence of this witnees sufficiently definite and certain to overcome the positive evidence furnished by the books of the defendants themselves.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(9) In reference to the cause of action relating to the 600 pesos, it appears that the plaintiff left the employ of the defendants on the 19th of Macrh, 1903; that at their request he went to Hongkong, and was there for about two months looking after the business of the defendants in the matter of the repair of a certain steamship. The appellants in their brief say that the plaintiff is entitled to no compensation for his services thus rendered, because by the provisions of article 1711 of the Civil Code, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the contract of agency is supposed to be gratuitous. That article i not applicable to this case, because the

amount of 600 pesos not claimed as compensation for services but as a reimbursment for money expended by the plaintiff in the business of the defendants. The article of the code that is applicable is article 1728.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs, of this instance against the appellants. After the expiration of twenty days from the date of this decision let final judgment be entered herein, and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the lower court for execution. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-55397 February 29, 1988

TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO., petitioner, vs.THE INSURANCE COMMISSION and TRAVELLERS MULTI-INDEMNITY CORPORATION, respondents.

 

GANCAYCO, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari seeks the reversal of the decision of the Insurance Commission in IC Case #367 1dismissing the complaint 2 for recovery of the alleged unpaid balance of the proceeds of the Fire Insurance Policies issued by herein respondent insurance company in favor of petitioner-intervenor.

The facts of the case as found by respondent Insurance Commission are as follows:

Complainants acquired from a certain Rolando Gonzales a parcel of land and a building located at San Rafael Village, Davao City. Complainants assumed the mortgage of the building in favor of S.S.S., which building was insured with respondent S.S.S. Accredited Group of Insurers for P25,000.00.

On April 19, 1975, Azucena Palomo obtained a loan from Tai Tong Chuache Inc. in the amount of P100,000.00. To secure the payment of the loan, a mortgage was executed over the land and the building in favor of Tai Tong Chuache & Co. (Exhibit "1" and "1-A"). On April 25, 1975, Arsenio Chua, representative of Thai Tong Chuache & Co. insured the latter's interest with Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corporation for P100,000.00 (P70,000.00 for the building and P30,000.00 for the contents thereof) (Exhibit "A-a," contents thereof) (Exhibit "A-a").

On June 11, 1975, Pedro Palomo secured a Fire Insurance Policy No. F- 02500 (Exhibit "A"), covering the building for P50,000.00 with respondent Zenith Insurance Corporation. On July 16, 1975, another Fire Insurance Policy No. 8459 (Exhibit "B") was procured from respondent Philippine British Assurance Company, covering the same building for P50,000.00 and the contents thereof for P70,000.00.

On July 31, 1975, the building and the contents were totally razed by fire.

Adjustment Standard Corporation submitted a report as follow

xxx xxx xxx

... Thus the apportioned share of each company is as follows:

We are showing hereunder another apportionment of the loss which includes the Travellers Multi-Indemnity policy for reference purposes.xxxx

Based on the computation of the loss, including the Travellers Multi- Indemnity, respondents, Zenith Insurance, Phil. British Assurance and S.S.S. Accredited Group of Insurers, paid their corresponding shares of the loss. Complainants were paid the following: P41,546.79 by Philippine British Assurance Co., P11,877.14 by Zenith Insurance Corporation, and P5,936.57 by S.S.S. Group of Accredited Insurers (Par. 6. Amended Complaint). Demand was made from respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity for its share in the loss but the same was refused. Hence, complainants demanded from the other three (3) respondents the balance of each share in the loss based on the computation of the Adjustment Standards Report excluding Travellers Multi-Indemnity in the amount of P30,894.31 (P5,732.79-Zenith Insurance: P22,294.62, Phil. British: and P2,866.90, SSS Accredited) but the same was refused, hence, this action.

In their answers, Philippine British Assurance and Zenith Insurance Corporation admitted the material allegations in the complaint, but denied liability on the ground that the claim of the complainants had already been waived, extinguished or paid. Both companies set up counterclaim in the total amount of P 91,546.79.

Instead of filing an answer, SSS Accredited Group of Insurers informed the Commission in its letter of July 22, 1977 that the herein claim of complainants for the balance had been paid in the amount of P 5,938.57 in

full, based on the Adjustment Standards Corporation Report of September 22, 1975.

Travellers Insurance, on its part, admitted the issuance of the Policy No. 599 DV and alleged as its special and affirmative defenses the following, to wit: that Fire Policy No. 599 DV, covering the furniture and building of complainants was secured by a certain Arsenio Chua, mortgage creditor, for the purpose of protecting his mortgage credit against the complainants; that the said policy was issued in the name of Azucena Palomo, only to indicate that she owns the insured premises; that the policy contains an endorsement in favor of Arsenio Chua as his mortgage interest may appear to indicate that insured was Arsenio Chua and the complainants; that the premium due on said fire policy was paid by Arsenio Chua; that respondent Travellers is not liable to pay complainants.

On May 31, 1977, Tai Tong Chuache & Co. filed a complaint in intervention claiming the proceeds of the fire Insurance Policy No. F-559 DV, issued by respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity.

Travellers Insurance, in answer to the complaint in intervention, alleged that the Intervenor is not entitled to indemnity under its Fire Insurance Policy for lack of insurable interest before the loss of the insured premises and that the complainants, spouses Pedro and Azucena Palomo, had already paid in full their mortgage indebtedness to the intervenor. 3

As adverted to above respondent Insurance Commission dismissed spouses Palomos' complaint on the ground that the insurance policy subject of the complaint was taken out by Tai Tong Chuache & Company, petitioner herein, for its own interest only as mortgagee of the insured property and thus complainant as mortgagors of the insured property have no right of action against herein respondent. It likewise dismissed petitioner's complaint in intervention in the following words:

We move on the issue of liability of respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity to the Intervenor-mortgagee. The complainant testified that she was still indebted to Intervenor in the amount of P100,000.00. Such allegation has not however, been sufficiently proven by documentary evidence. The certification (Exhibit 'E-e') issued by the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch 11, indicate that the complainant was Antonio Lopez Chua and not Tai Tong Chuache & Company. 4

From the above decision, only intervenor Tai Tong Chuache filed a motion for reconsideration but it was likewise denied hence, the present petition.

It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent Insurance Commission decided an issue not raised in the pleadings of the parties in that it ruled that a certain Arsenio Lopez Chua is the one entitled to the insurance proceeds and not Tai Tong Chuache & Company.

This Court cannot fault petitioner for the above erroneous interpretation of the decision appealed from considering the manner it was written. 5 As correctly pointed out by respondent insurance commission in their comment, the decision did not pronounce that it was Arsenio Lopez Chua who has insurable interest over the insured property. Perusal of the decision reveals however that it readily absolved respondent insurance company from liability on the basis of the commissioner's conclusion that at the time of the occurrence of the peril insured against petitioner as mortgagee had no more insurable interest over the insured property. It was based on the inference that the credit secured by the mortgaged property was already paid by the Palomos before the said property was gutted down by fire. The foregoing conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the certification issued by the then Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch II that in a certain civil action against the Palomos, Antonio Lopez Chua stands as the complainant and not petitioner Tai Tong Chuache & Company.

We find the petition to be impressed with merit. It is a well known postulate that the case of a party is constituted by his own affirmative allegations. Under Section 1, Rule 131  6 each party must prove his own affirmative allegations by the amount of evidence required by law which in civil cases as in the present case is preponderance of evidence. The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at the trial such amount of evidence as required by law to obtain favorable judgment.  7 Thus, petitioner who is claiming a right over the insurance must prove its case. Likewise, respondent insurance company to avoid liability under the policy by setting up an affirmative defense of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner must prove its own affirmative allegations.

It will be recalled that respondent insurance company did not assail the validity of the insurance policy taken out by petitioner over the mortgaged property. Neither did it deny that the said property was totally razed by fire within the period covered by the insurance. Respondent, as mentioned earlier advanced an affirmative defense of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner that before the occurrence of the peril insured against the Palomos had already paid their credit due the petitioner. Respondent having admitted the material allegations in the complaint, has the burden of proof to show that petitioner has no insurable interest over the insured property at the time the contingency took place. Upon that point, there is a failure of proof. Respondent, it will be noted, exerted no effort to present any evidence to substantiate its claim, while petitioner did. For said respondent's failure, the decision must be adverse to it.

However, as adverted to earlier, respondent Insurance Commission absolved respondent insurance company from liability on the basis of the certification issued by the then Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch II, that in a certain civil action against the Palomos, Arsenio Lopez Chua stands as the complainant and not Tai Tong Chuache. From said evidence

respondent commission inferred that the credit extended by herein petitioner to the Palomos secured by the insured property must have been paid. Such is a glaring error which this Court cannot sanction. Respondent Commission's findings are based upon a mere inference.

The record of the case shows that the petitioner to support its claim for the insurance proceeds offered as evidence the contract of mortgage (Exh. 1) which has not been cancelled nor released. It has been held in a long line of cases that when the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove non-payment for it is presumed. 8 The validity of the insurance policy taken b petitioner was not assailed by private respondent. Moreover, petitioner's claim that the loan extended to the Palomos has not yet been paid was corroborated by Azucena Palomo who testified that they are still indebted to herein petitioner. 9

Public respondent argues however, that if the civil case really stemmed from the loan granted to Azucena Palomo by petitioner the same should have been brought by Tai Tong Chuache or by its representative in its own behalf. From the above premise respondent concluded that the obligation secured by the insured property must have been paid.

The premise is correct but the conclusion is wrong. Citing Rule 3, Sec. 2 10 respondent pointed out that the action must be brought in the name of the real party in interest. We agree. However, it should be borne in mind that petitioner being a partnership may sue and be sued in its name or by its duly authorized representative. The fact that Arsenio Lopez Chua is the representative of petitioner is not questioned. Petitioner's declaration that Arsenio Lopez Chua acts as the managing partner of the partnership was corroborated by respondent insurance company. 11 Thus Chua as the managing partner of the partnership may execute all acts of administration 12 including the right to sue debtors of the partnership in case of their failure to pay their obligations when it became due and demandable. Or at the very least, Chua being a partner of petitioner Tai Tong Chuache & Company is an agent of the partnership. Being an agent, it is understood that he acted for and in behalf of the firm.  13 Public respondent's allegation that the civil case flied by Arsenio Chua was in his capacity as personal creditor of spouses Palomo has no basis.

The respondent insurance company having issued a policy in favor of herein petitioner which policy was of legal force and effect at the time of the fire, it is bound by its terms and conditions. Upon its failure to prove the allegation of lack of insurable interest on the part of the petitioner, respondent insurance company is and must be held liable.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE and ANOTHER judgment is rendered order private respondent Travellers Multi-Indemnity Corporation to pay petitioner the face value of Insurance Policy No. 599-DV in the amount of P100,000.00. Costs against said private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-11624            January 21, 1918E. M. BACHRACH, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs."LA PROTECTORA", ET AL., defendants-appellants.In the year 1913, the individuals named as defendants in this action formed a civil partnership, called "La Protectora," for the purpose of engaging in the business of transporting passengers and freight at Laoag, Ilocos Norte. In order to provide the enterprise with means of transportation, Marcelo Barba, acting as manager, came to Manila and upon June 23, 1913, negotiated the purchase of two automobile trucks from the plaintiff, E. M. Bachrach, for the agree price of P16,500. He paid the sum of 3,000 in cash, and for the balance executed promissory notes representing the deferred payments. These notes provided for the payment of interest from June 23, 1913, the date of the notes, at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. Provision was also made in the notes for the payment of 25 per cent of the amount due if it should be necessary to place the notes in the hands of an attorney for collection. Three of these notes, for the sum of P3,375 each, have been made the subject of the present action, and there are exhibited with the complaint in the cause. One was signed by Marcelo Barba in the following manner:

P. P. La Protectora By Marcelo Barba Marcelo Barba.

The other two notes are signed in the same way with the word "By" omitted before the name of Marcelo Barba in the second line of the signature. It is obvious that in thus signing the notes Marcelo Barba intended to bind both the partnership and himself. In the body of the note the word "I" (yo) instead of "we" (nosotros) is used before the words "promise to pay" (prometemos) used in the printed form. It is plain that the singular pronoun here has all the force of the plural.

As preliminary to the purchase of these trucks, the defendants Nicolas Segundo, Antonio Adiarte, Ignacio Flores, and Modesto Serrano, upon June 12, 1913, executed in due form a document in which they declared that they were members of the firm "La Protectora" and that they had granted to its president full authority "in the name and representation of said partnership to contract for the purchase of two automobiles" (en nombre y representacion de la mencionada sociedad contratante la compra de dos automoviles). This document was apparently executed in obedience to the requirements of subsection 2 of article 1697 of the Civil Code, for the purpose of evidencing the authority of Marcelo Barba to bind the partnership by the purchase. The document in question was delivered by him to Bachrach at the time the automobiles were purchased.

From time to time after this purchase was made, Marcelo Barba purchased of the plaintiff various automobile effects and accessories to be used in the business of "La Protectora." Upon May 21, 1914, the indebtedness resulting from these additional purchases amounted to the sum of P2,916.57

In May, 1914, the plaintiff foreclosed a chattel mortgage which he had retained on the trucks in order to secure the purchase price. The amount realized from this sale was P1,000. This was

credited unpaid. To recover this balance, together with the sum due for additional purchases, the present action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, upon May 29, 1914, against "La Protectora" and the five individuals Marcelo Barba, Nicolas Segundo, Antonio Adiarte, Ignacio Flores, and Modesto Serrano. No question has been made as to the propriety of impleading "La Protectora" as if it were a legal entity. At the hearing, judgment was rendered against all of the defendants. From this judgment no appeal was taken in behalf either of "La Protectora" or Marcelo Barba; and their liability is not here under consideration. The four individuals who signed the document to which reference has been made, authorizing Barba to purchase the two trucks have, however, appealed and assigned errors. The question here to be determined is whether or not these individuals are liable for the firm debts and if so to what extent.

The amount of indebtedness owing to the plaintiff is not in dispute, as the principal of the debt is agreed to be P7,037. Of this amount it must now be assumed, in view of the finding of the trial court, from which no appeal has been taken by the plaintiff, that the unpaid balance of the notes amounts to P4,121, while the remainder (P2,916) represents the amount due for automobile supplies and accessories.

The business conducted under the name of "La Protectora" was evidently that of a civil partnership; and the liability of the partners to this association must be determined under the provisions of the Civil Code. The authority of Marcelo Barba to bind the partnership, in the purchase of the trucks, is fully established by the document executed by the four appellants upon June 12, 1913. The transaction by which Barba secured these trucks was in conformity with the tenor of this document. The promissory notes constitute the obligation exclusively of "La Protectora" and of Marcelo Barba; and they do not in any sense constitute an obligation directly binding on the four appellants. Their liability is based on the fact that they are members of the civil partnership and as such are liable for its debts. It is true that article 1698 of the Civil Code declares that a member of a civil partnership is not liable in solidum (solidariamente) with his fellows for its entire indebtedness; but it results from this article, in connection with article 1137 of the Civil Code, that each is liable with the others (mancomunadamente) for his aliquot part of such indebtedness. And so it has been held by this court. (Co-Pitco vs. Yulo, 8 Phil. Rep., 544.)

The Court of First Instance seems to have founded its judgment against the appellants in part upon the idea that the document executed by them constituted an authority for Marcelo Barba to bind them personally, as contemplated in the second clause of article 1698 of the Civil Code. That cause says that no member of the partnership can bind the others by a personal act if they have not given him authority to do so. We think that the document referred to was intended merely as an authority to enable Barba to bind the partnership and that the parties to that instrument did not intend thereby to confer upon Barba an authority to bind them personally. It is obvious that the contract which Barba in fact executed in pursuance of that authority did not by its terms profess to bind the appellants personally at all, but only the partnership and himself. It follows that the four appellants cannot be held to have been

personally obligated by that instrument; but, as we have already seen, their liability rests upon the general principles underlying partnership liability.

As to so much of the indebtedness as is based upon the claim for automobile supplies and accessories, it is obvious that the document of June 12, 1913, affords no authority for holding the appellants liable. Their liability upon this account is, however, no less obvious than upon the debt incurred by the purchase of the trucks; and such liability is derived from the fact that the debt was lawfully incurred in the prosecution of the partnership enterprise.

There is no proof in the record showing what the agreement, if any, was made with regard to the form of management. Under these circumstances it is declared in article 1695 of the Civil Code that all the partners are considered agents of the partnership. Barba therefore must be held to have had authority to incur these expenses. But in addition to this he is shown to have been in fact the president or manager, and there can be no doubt that he had actual authority to incur this obligation.

From what has been said it results that the appellants are severally liable for their respective shares of the entire indebtedness found to be due; and the Court of First Instance committed no error in giving judgment against them. The amount for which judgment should be entered is P7,037, to which shall be added (1) interest at 10 per cent per annum from June 23, 1913, to be calculated upon the sum of P4.121; (2) interest at 6 per cent per annum from July 21, 1915, to be calculated upon the sum of P2,961; (3) the further sum of P1,030.25, this being the amount stipulated to be paid by way of attorney's fees. However, it should be noted that any property pertaining to "La Protectora" should first be applied to this indebtedness pursuant to the judgment already entered in this case in the court below; and each of the four appellants shall be liable only for the one-fifth part of the remainder unpaid.

Let judgment be entered accordingly, without any express finding of costs of this instance. So ordered.

May 13, 1903 G.R. No. 1011JOSE MACHUCA, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.CHUIDIAN, BUENAVENTURA & CO.,defendants-appellants.

Most of the allegations of the complaint were admitted by the defendant at the hearing, and the judgment of the court below is based on the state of facts appearing from such admissions, no evidence having been taken.

The defendants are a regular general partnership, organized in Manila, December 29, 1882, as a continuation of a prior partnership of the same name. The original partners constituting the partnership of 1882 were D. Telesforo Chuidian, Doña Raymunda Chuidian, Doña Candelaria Chuidian, and D. Mariano Buenaventura. The capital was fixed in the partnership agreement at

16,000 pesos, of which the first three partners named contributed 50,000 pesos each, and the last named 10,000 pesos, and it was stipulated that the liability of the partners should be “limited to the amounts brought in by them to form the partnership stock.”

In addition to the amounts contributed by the partners to the capital, it appears from the partnership agreement that each one of them had advanced money to the preexisting partnership, which advances were assumed or accounts-current aggregated something over 665,000 pesos, of which sum about 569,000 pesos represented the advances from the Chuidians and the balance that balance that from D. Mariano Buenaventura.

Doña Raymunda Chuidian retired from the partnership November 4, 1885. On January 1, 1888, the partnership went into liquidation, and it does not appear that the liquidation had been terminated when this action was brought.

Down to the time the partnership went into liquidation the accounts-current of D. Telesforo Chuidian and Doña Candelaria Chuidian had been diminished in an amount aggregating about 288,000 pesos, while that of D. Mariano Buenaventura had been increased about 51,000 pesos. During the period from the commencement of the liquidation down to January 1, 1896, the account-current of each of the Chuidians had been still further decreased, while that of D. Mariano Buenaventura had been still further increased.

On January 1, 1894, D. Mariano Buenaventura died, his estate passing by will to his children, among whom was D. Vicente Buenaventura. Upon the partition of the estate the amount of the interest of D. Vicente Buenaventura in his father’s account-current and in the capital was ascertained and recorded in the books of the firm.

On December 15, 1898, D. Vicente Buenaventura executed a public instrument in which for a valuable consideration he “assigns to D. Jose Gervasio Garcia . . . a 25 per cent share in all that may be obtained by whatever right in whatever form from the liquidation of the partnership of Chuidian, Buenaventura & Co., in the part pertaining to him in said partnership, . . . the assignee, being expressly empowered to do in his own name, and as a part owner, by virtue of this assignment in the assets of the partnership, whatever things may be necessary for the purpose of accelerating the liquidation, and of obtaining on judicially or extrajudicially the payment of the deposits account-current pertaining to the assignor, it being understood that D. Jose Gervasio Garcia is to receive the 25 per cent assigned to him, in the same form in which it may be obtained from said partnership, whether in cash, credits, goods, movables or immovables, and on the date when Messrs. Chuidian, Buenaventura & Co., in liquidation, shall have effected the operations necessary in order to satisfy the credits and the share in the partnership capital hereinbefore mentioned.”

The plaintiff claims under Garcia by virtue of a subsequent assignment, which has been notified to the liquidator of the partnership.

The liquidator of the partnership having declined to record in the books of the partnership the plaintiff’s claim under the assignment as a credit due from the concern to him this action is

brought to compel such record to be made, and the plaintiff further asks that he be adjudicated to be a creditor of the partnership in an amount equal to 25 per cent of D. Vicente Buenaventura’s share in his father’s account-current, as ascertained when the record was made in the books of the partnership upon the partition of the latters estate, with interest, less the liability to which the plaintiff is subject by reason of his share in the capital; that the necessary liquidation being first had, the partnership pay to the plaintiff the balance which may be found to be due him; and that if the partnership has no funds with which to discharge this obligation an adjudication of bankruptcy be made. He also asks to recover the damages caused by reason of the failure of the liquidator to record his credit in the books of partnership.

The judgment of the court below goes beyond the relief asked by the plaintiff in the complaint, the plaintiff being held entitled not only to have the credit assigned him recorded in the books of the partnership but also to receive forthwith 25 per cent of an amount representing the share of D. Vicente Buenaventura in the account-current at the time of the partition of his father’s estate, with interest, the payment of the 25 percent of Buenaventura’s share in the capital to be postponed till the termination of the liquidation. This point has not, however, been taken by counsel, and we have therefore considered the case upon its merits.

The underlying question in the case relates to the construction of clause 19 of the partnership agreement, by which it was stipulated that “upon the dissolution of the company, the pending obligations in favor of outside parties should be satisfied, the funds of the minors Jose and Francisco Chuidian [it does not appear what their interest in the partnership was or when or how it was acquired] should be taken out, and afterwards the resulting balance of the account-current of each one of those who had put in money (imponentes) should be paid.”Our construction of this clause is that it establishes a a basis for the final adjustment of the affairs of the partnership; that that basis is that the liabilities to noncompartners are to be first discharged; that the claims of the Chuidian minors are to be next satisfied; and that what is due to the respective partners on account of their advances to the firm is to be paid last of all, leaving the ultimate residue, of course, if there be any, to be distributed, among the partners in the proportions in which they may be entitled thereto.

Although in a sense the partners, being at the same time creditors, were “outside parties,” it is clear that a distinction is made in this clause between creditors who were partners and creditors who were not partners, and that the expression “outside parties” refers to the latter class. And the words “pending obligations,” we think, clearly comprehend outstanding obligations of every kind in favor of such outside parties, and do not refer merely, as claimed by counsel for the plaintiff, to the completion of mercantile operations unfinished at the time of the dissolution of the partnership, such as consignments of goods and the like. As respects the claims of the Chuidian minors, the suggestion of counsel is that the clause in question means that their accounts are to be adjusted before those of the partners but not paid first. Such a provision would have been of no practical utility, and the language used – that the funds should be “taken out” – (se dedujeran) does not admit of such a construction.Such being the basis upon which by agreement of the partners the assets of the partnership are to be applied to the discharge of the various classes of the firm’s liabilities, it follows that D. Vicente Buenaventura, whose rights are those of his father, is in no case entitled to receive

any part of the assets until the creditors who are nonpartners and the Chuidian minors are paid. Whatever rights he had either as creditor or partner, he could only transfer subject to this condition. And it is clear, from the language of the instrument under which the plaintiff claims, that this conditional interest was all that D. Vicente Buenaventura ever intended to transfer. By that instrument he undertakes to assign to Garcia not a present interest in the assets of the partnership but an interest in whatever “may be obtained from the liquidation of the partnership,” which Garcia is to receive “in the same form in which it may be obtained from said partnership,” and “on the date when Messrs. Chuidian, Buenaventura & Co., in liquidation, shall have effected the operations necessary in order to satisfy” the claims of D. Vicente Buenaventura.

Upon this interpretation of the assignment, it becomes unnecessary to inquire whether article 143 of the Code of Commerce, prohibiting a partner from transferring his interest in the partnership without the consent of the other partners, applies to partnerships in liquidation, as contended by the defendant. The assignment by its terms is not to take effect until all the liabilities of the partnership have been discharged and nothing remains to be done except to distribute the assets, if there should be any, among the partners. Meanwhile the assignor, Buenaventura, is to continue in the enjoyment of the rights and is to remain subject to the liabilities of a partner as though no assignment had been made. In other words, the assignment does not purport to transfer an interest in the partnership, but only a future contingent right to 25 per cent of such portion of the ultimate residue of the partnership property as the assignor may become entitled to receive by virtue of his proportionate interest in the capital.

There is nothing in the case to show either that the nonpartner creditors of the partnership have been paid or that the claims of the Chuidian minors have been satisfied. Such rights as the plaintiff has acquired against the partnership under the assignment still remain, therefore, subject to the condition which attached to them in their origin, a condition wholly uncertain of realization, since it may be that the entire assets of the partnership will be exhausted in the payment of the creditors entitled to preference under the partnership agreement, thus extinguishing the plaintiff’s right to receive anything from the liquidation.

It is contended by the plaintiff that, as the partnership was without authority to enter upon new mercantile operations after the liquidation commenced, the increase in D. Mariano Buenaventura’s account-current during that period was the result of a void transaction, and that therefore the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw at once the proportion of such increase to which he is entitled under the assignment. With reference to this contention, it is sufficient to say that it nowhere appears in the case that the increase in D. Mariano Buenaventura’s account-current during the period of liquidation was the result of new advances to the firm, and the figures would appear to indicate that it resulted from the accumulation of interest.

Counsel for the plaintiff have discussed at length in their brief the meaning of the clause in the partnership agreement limiting the liability of the partners to the amounts respectively brought into the partnership by them, and the effect of this stipulation upon their rights as creditors of the firm. These are questions which relate to the final adjustment of the affairs of the firm, the

distribution of the assets remaining after all liabilities have been discharged, or, on the other hand, the apportionment of the losses if the assets should not be sufficient to meet the liabilities. They are in no way involved in the determination of the present case.

The plaintiff having acquired no rights under the assignment which are now enforceable against the defendant, this action can not be maintained. The liquidator of the defendant having been notified of the assignment, the plaintiff will be entitled to receive from the assets of the partnership, if any remain, at the termination of the liquidation, 25 per cent of D. Vicente’s resulting interest, both as partner and creditor. The judgment in this case should not affect the plaintiff’s right to bring another action against the partnership when the affairs of the same are finally wound up. The proper judgment will be that the action be dismissed. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with directions to enter a judgment of dismissal. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-16318             October 21, 1921

PANG LIM and BENITO GALVEZ, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.LO SENG, defendant-appellant.

          For several years prior to June 1, 1916, two of the litigating parties herein, namely, Lo Seng and Pang Lim, Chinese residents of the City of Manila, were partners, under the firm name of Lo Seng and Co., in the business of running a distillery, known as "El Progreso," in the Municipality of Paombong, in the Province of Bulacan. The land on which said distillery is located as well as the buildings and improvements originally used in the business were, at the time to which reference is now made, the property of another Chinaman, who resides in Hongkong, named Lo Yao, who, in September, 1911, leased the same to the firm of Lo Seng and Co. for the term of three years.

          Upon the expiration of this lease a new written contract, in the making of which Lo Yao was represented by one Lo Shui as attorney in fact, became effective whereby the lease was extended for fifteen years. The reason why the contract was made for so long a period of time appears to have been that the Bureau of Internal Revenue had required sundry expensive improvements to be made in the distillery, and it was agreed that these improvements should be effected at the expense of the lessees. In conformity with this understanding many thousands of pesos were expended by Lo Seng and Co., and later by Lo Seng alone, in enlarging and improving the plant.

          Among the provisions contained in said lease we note the following:

          Know all men by these presents:

x x x           x x x           x x x

1. That I, Lo Shui, as attorney in fact in charge of the properties of Mr. Lo Yao of Hongkong, cede by way of lease for fifteen years more said distillery "El Progreso" to Messrs. Pang Lim and Lo Seng (doing business under the firm name of Lo Seng and Co.), after the termination of the previous contract, because of the fact that they are required, by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, to rearrange, alter and clean up the distillery.

2. That all the improvements and betterments which they may introduce, such as machinery, apparatus, tanks, pumps, boilers and buildings which the business may require, shall be, after the termination of the fifteen years of lease, for the benefit of Mr. Lo Yao, my principal, the buildings being considered as improvements.

3. That the monthly rent of said distillery is P200, as agreed upon in the previous contract of September 11, 1911, acknowledged before the notary public D. Vicente Santos; and all modifications and repairs which may be needed shall be paid for by Messrs. Pang Lim and Lo Seng.

          We, Pang Lim and Lo Seng, as partners in said distillery "El Progreso," which we are at present conducting, hereby accept this contract in each and all its parts, said contract to be effective upon the termination of the contract of September 11, 1911.

          Neither the original contract of lease nor the agreement extending the same was inscribed in the property registry, for the reason that the estate which is the subject of the lease has never at any time been so inscribed.

          On June 1, 1916, Pang Lim sold all his interest in the distillery to his partner Lo Seng, thus placing the latter in the position of sole owner; and on June 28, 1918, Lo Shui, again acting as attorney in fact of Lo Yao, executed and acknowledged before a notary public a deed purporting to convey to Pang Lim and another Chinaman named Benito Galvez, the entire distillery plant including the land used in connection therewith. As in case of the lease this document also was never recorded in the registry of property. Thereafter Pang Lim and Benito Galvez demanded possession from Lo Seng, but the latter refused to yield; and the present action of unlawful detainer was thereupon initiated by Pang Lim and Benito Galvez in the court of the justice of the peace of Paombong to recover possession of the premises. From the decision of the justice of the peace the case was appealed to the Court of First Instance, where judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs; and the defendant thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court.

          The case for the plaintiffs is rested exclusively on the provisions of article 1571 of the Civil Code, which reads in part as follows:

          ART. 1571. The purchaser of a leased estate shall be entitled to terminate any lease in force at the time of making the sale, unless the contrary is stipulated, and subject to the provisions of the Mortgage Law.

          In considering this provision it may be premised that a contract of lease is personally binding on all who participate in it regardless of whether it is recorded or not, though of course the unrecorded lease creates no real charge upon the land to which it relates. The Mortgage Law was devised for the protection of third parties, or those who have not participated in the contracts which are by that law required to be registered; and none of its provisions with reference to leases interpose any obstacle whatever to the giving of full effect to the personal obligations incident to such contracts, so far as concerns the immediate parties thereto. This is rudimentary, and the law appears to be so understood by all commentators, there being, so far as we are aware, no authority suggesting the contrary. Thus, in the commentaries of the authors Galindo and Escosura, on the Mortgage Law, we find the following pertinent observation: "The Mortgage Law is enacted in aid of and in respect to third persons only; it does not affect the relations between the contracting parties, nor their capacity to contract. Any question affecting the former will be determined by the dispositions of the special law [i.e., the Mortgage Law], while any question affecting the latter will be determined by the general law." (Galindo y Escosura, Comentarios a la Legislacion Hipotecaria, vol. I, p. 461.)

          Although it is thus manifest that, under the Mortgage Law, as regards the personal obligations expressed therein, the lease in question was from the beginning, and has remained, binding upon all the parties thereto — among whom is to be numbered Pang Lim, then a member of the firm of Lo Seng and Co. — this does not really solve the problem now before us, which is, whether the plaintiffs herein, as purchasers of the estate, are at liberty to terminate the lease, assuming that it was originally binding upon all parties participating in it.

          Upon this point the plaintiffs are undoubtedly supported, prima facie, by the letter of article 1571 of the Civil Code; and the position of the defendant derives no assistance from the mere circumstance that the lease was admittedly binding as between the parties thereto. 1awph!l.net

          The words "subject to the provisions of the Mortgage Law," contained in article 1571, express a qualification which evidently has reference to the familiar proposition that recorded instruments are effective against third persons from the date of registration (Co-Tiongco vs. Co-Guia, 1 Phil., 210); from whence it follows that a recorded lease must be respected by any purchaser of the estate whomsoever. But there is nothing in the Mortgage Law which, so far as we now see, would prevent a purchaser from exercising the precise power conferred in article 1571 of the Civil Code, namely, of terminating any lease which is

unrecorded; nothing in that law that can be considered as arresting the force of article 1571 as applied to the lease now before us.

          Article 1549 of the Civil Code has also been cited by the attorneys for the appellant as supplying authority for the proposition that the lease in question cannot be terminated by one who, like Pang Lim, has taken part in the contract. That provision is practically identical in terms with the first paragraph of article 23 of the Mortgage Law, being to the effect that unrecorded leases shall be of no effect as against third persons; and the same observation will suffice to dispose of it that was made by us above in discussing the Mortgage Law, namely, that while it recognizes the fact that an unrecorded lease is binding on all persons who participate therein, this does not determine the question whether, admitting the lease to be so binding, it can be terminated by the plaintiffs under article 1571.

          Having thus disposed of the considerations which arise in relation with the Mortgage Law, as well as article 1549 of the Civil Coded — all of which, as we have seen, are undecisive — we are brought to consider the aspect of the case which seems to us conclusive. This is found in the circumstance that the plaintiff Pang Lim has occupied a double role in the transactions which gave rise to this litigation, namely, first, as one of the lessees; and secondly, as one of the purchasers now seeking to terminate the lease. These two positions are essentially antagonistic and incompatible. Every competent person is by law bond to maintain in all good faith the integrity of his own obligations; and no less certainly is he bound to respect the rights of any person whom he has placed in his own shoes as regards any contract previously entered into by himself.

          While yet a partner in the firm of Lo Seng and Co., Pang Lim participated in the creation of this lease, and when he sold out his interest in that firm to Lo Seng this operated as a transfer to Lo Seng of Pang Lim's interest in the firm assets, including the lease; and Pang Lim cannot now be permitted, in the guise of a purchaser of the estate, to destroy an interest derived from himself, and for which he has received full value.

          The bad faith of the plaintiffs in seeking to deprive the defendant of this lease is strikingly revealed in the circumstance that prior to the acquisition of this property Pang Lim had been partner with Lo Seng and Benito Galvez an employee. Both therefore had been in relations of confidence with Lo Seng and in that position had acquired knowledge of the possibilities of the property and possibly an experience which would have enabled them, in case they had acquired possession, to exploit the distillery with profit. On account of his status as partner in the firm of Lo Seng and Co., Pang Lim knew that the original lease had been extended for fifteen years; and he knew the extent of valuable improvements that had been made thereon. Certainly, as observed in the appellant's brief, it would be shocking to the moral sense if the condition of the law were found to be such that Pang Lim, after profiting by the sale of his interest in a business, worthless without the lease, could intervene as purchaser of the property and confiscate for his own benefit the property which he had sold for a valuable

consideration to Lo Seng. The sense of justice recoils before the mere possibility of such eventuality.

          Above all other persons in business relations, partners are required to exhibit towards each other the highest degree of good faith. In fact the relation between partners is essentially fiduciary, each being considered in law, as he is in fact, the confidential agent of the other. It is therefore accepted as fundamental in equity jurisprudence that one partner cannot, to the detriment of another, apply exclusively to his own benefit the results of the knowledge and information gained in the character of partner. Thus, it has been held that if one partner obtains in his own name and for his own benefit the renewal of a lease on property used by the firm, to commence at a date subsequent to the expiration of the firm's lease, the partner obtaining the renewal is held to be a constructive trustee of the firm as to such lease. (20 R. C. L., 878-882.) And this rule has even been applied to a renewal taken in the name of one partner after the dissolution of the firm and pending its liquidation. (16 R. C. L., 906; Knapp vs. Reed, 88 Neb., 754; 32 L. R. A. [N. S.], 869; Mitchell vs. Reed 61 N. Y., 123; 19 Am. Rep., 252.)

          An additional consideration showing that the position of the plaintiff Pang Lim in this case is untenable is deducible from articles 1461 and 1474 of the Civil Code, which declare that every person who sells anything is bound to deliver and warrant the subject-matter of the sale and is responsible to the vendee for the legal and lawful possession of the thing sold. The pertinence of these provisions to the case now under consideration is undeniable, for among the assets of the partnership which Pang Lim transferred to Lo Seng, upon selling out his interest in the firm to the latter, was this very lease; and while it cannot be supposed that the obligation to warrant recognized in the articles cited would nullify article 1571, if the latter article had actually conferred on the plaintiffs the right to terminate this lease, nevertheless said articles (1461, 1474), in relation with other considerations, reveal the basis of an estoppel which in our opinion precludes Pang Lim from setting up his interest as purchaser of the estate to the detriment of Lo Seng.

          It will not escape observation that the doctrine thus applied is analogous to the doctrine recognized in courts of common law under the head of estoppel by deed, in accordance with which it is held that if a person, having no title to land, conveys the same to another by some one or another of the recognized modes of conveyance at common law, any title afterwards acquired by the vendor will pass to the purchaser; and the vendor is estopped as against such purchaser from asserting such after-acquired title. The indenture of lease, it may be further noted, was recognized as one of the modes of conveyance at common law which created this estoppel. (8 R. C. L., 1058, 1059.)

          From what has been said it is clear that Pang Lim, having been a participant in the contract of lease now in question, is not in a position to terminate it: and this is a fatal obstacle to the maintenance of the action of unlawful detainer by him. Moreover, it is fatal to the maintenance of the action brought jointly by Pang Lim and Benito Galvez. The reason is that in the action of unlawful detainer, under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the only

question that can be adjudicated is the right to possession; and in order to maintain the action, in the form in which it is here presented, the proof must show that occupant's possession is unlawful, i. e., that he is unlawfully withholding possession after the determination of the right to hold possession. In the case before us quite the contrary appears; for, even admitting that Pang Lim and Benito Galvez have purchased the estate from Lo Yao, the original landlord, they are, as between themselves, in the position of tenants in common or owners  pro indiviso, according to the proportion of their respective contribution to the purchase price. But it is well recognized that one tenant in common cannot maintain a possessory action against his cotenant, since one is as much entitled to have possession as the other. The remedy is ordinarily by an action for partition. (Cornista vs. Ticson, 27 Phil., 80.) It follows that as Lo Seng is vested with the possessory right as against Pang Lim, he cannot be ousted either by Pang Lim or Benito Galvez. Having lawful possession as against one cotenant, he is entitled to retain it against both. Furthermore, it is obvious that partition proceedings could not be maintained at the instance of Benito Galvez as against Lo Seng, since partition can only be effected where the partitioners are cotenants, that is, have an interest of an identical character as among themselves. (30 Cyc., 178-180.) The practical result is that both Pang Lim and Benito Galvez are bound to respect Lo Seng's lease, at least in so far as the present action is concerned.

          We have assumed in the course of the preceding discussion that the deed of sale under which the plaintiffs acquired the right of Lo Yao, the owner of the fee, is competent proof in behalf of the plaintiffs. It is, however, earnestly insisted by the attorney for Lo Seng that this document, having never been recorded in the property registry, cannot under article 389 of the Mortgage Law, be used in court against him because as to said instrument he is a third party. The important question thus raised is not absolutely necessary to the decision of this case, and we are inclined to pass it without decision, not only because the question does not seem to have been ventilated in the Court of First Instance but for the further reason that we have not had the benefit of any written brief in this case in behalf of the appellees.

          The judgment appealed from will be reversed, and the defendant will be absolved from the complaint. It is so ordered, without express adjudication as to costs.

G.R. No. 70926 January 31, 1989

DAN FUE LEUNG, petitioner, vs.HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEUNG YIU, respondents.

The petitioner asks for the reversal of the decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court in AC-G.R. No. CV-00881 which affirmed the decision of the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch II in Civil Case No. 116725 declaring private respondent Leung Yiu a partner of petitioner Dan Fue Leung in the business of Sun Wah Panciteria and ordering the petitioner to pay to the private respondent his share in the annual profits of the said restaurant.

This case originated from a complaint filed by respondent Leung Yiu with the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch II to recover the sum equivalent to twenty-two percent (22%) of the annual profits derived from the operation of Sun Wah Panciteria since October, 1955 from petitioner Dan Fue Leung.

The Sun Wah Panciteria, a restaurant, located at Florentino Torres Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, was established sometime in October, 1955. It was registered as a single proprietorship and its licenses and permits were issued to and in favor of petitioner Dan Fue Leung as the sole proprietor. Respondent Leung Yiu adduced evidence during the trial of the case to show that Sun Wah Panciteria was actually a partnership and that he was one of the partners having contributed P4,000.00 to its initial establishment.

The private respondents evidence is summarized as follows:

About the time the Sun Wah Panciteria started to become operational, the private respondent gave P4,000.00 as his contribution to the partnership. This is evidenced by a receipt identified as Exhibit "A" wherein the petitioner acknowledged his acceptance of the P4,000.00 by affixing his signature thereto. The receipt was written in Chinese characters so that the trial court commissioned an interpreter in the person of Ms. Florence Yap to translate its contents into English. Florence Yap issued a certification and testified that the translation to the best of her knowledge and belief was correct. The private respondent identified the signature on the receipt as that of the petitioner (Exhibit A-3) because it was affixed by the latter in his (private respondents') presence. Witnesses So Sia and Antonio Ah Heng corroborated the private respondents testimony to the effect that they were both present when the receipt (Exhibit "A") was signed by the petitioner. So Sia further testified that he himself received from the petitioner a similar receipt (Exhibit D) evidencing delivery of his own investment in another amount of P4,000.00 An examination was conducted by the PC Crime Laboratory on orders of the trial court granting the private respondents motion for examination of certain documentary exhibits. The signatures in Exhibits "A" and 'D' when compared to the signature of the petitioner appearing in the pay envelopes of employees of the restaurant, namely Ah Heng and Maria Wong (Exhibits H, H-1 to H-24) showed that the signatures in the two receipts were indeed the signatures of the petitioner.

Furthermore, the private respondent received from the petitioner the amount of P12,000.00 covered by the latter's Equitable Banking Corporation Check No. 13389470-B from the profits of the operation of the restaurant for the year 1974. Witness Teodulo Diaz, Chief of the Savings Department of the China Banking Corporation testified that said check (Exhibit B) was deposited by and duly credited to the private respondents savings account with the bank after it was cleared by the drawee bank, the Equitable Banking Corporation. Another witness Elvira Rana of the Equitable Banking Corporation testified that the check in question was in fact and in truth drawn by the petitioner and debited against his own account in said bank. This fact was clearly shown and indicated in the petitioner's statement of account after the check (Exhibit B)

was duly cleared. Rana further testified that upon clearance of the check and pursuant to normal banking procedure, said check was returned to the petitioner as the maker thereof.

The petitioner denied having received from the private respondent the amount of P4,000.00. He contested and impugned the genuineness of the receipt (Exhibit D). His evidence is summarized as follows:

The petitioner did not receive any contribution at the time he started the Sun Wah Panciteria. He used his savings from his salaries as an employee at Camp Stotsenberg in Clark Field and later as waiter at the Toho Restaurant amounting to a little more than P2,000.00 as capital in establishing Sun Wah Panciteria. To bolster his contention that he was the sole owner of the restaurant, the petitioner presented various government licenses and permits showing the Sun Wah Panciteria was and still is a single proprietorship solely owned and operated by himself alone. Fue Leung also flatly denied having issued to the private respondent the receipt (Exhibit G) and the Equitable Banking Corporation's Check No. 13389470 B in the amount of P12,000.00 (Exhibit B).

As between the conflicting evidence of the parties, the trial court gave credence to that of the plaintiffs. Hence, the court ruled in favor of the private respondent. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter to deliver and pay to the former, the sum equivalent to 22% of the annual profit derived from the operation of Sun Wah Panciteria from October, 1955, until fully paid, and attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00 and cost of suit. (p. 125, Rollo)

The private respondent filed a verified motion for reconsideration in the nature of a motion for new trial and, as supplement to the said motion, he requested that the decision rendered should include the net profit of the Sun Wah Panciteria which was not specified in the decision, and allow private respondent to adduce evidence so that the said decision will be comprehensively adequate and thus put an end to further litigation.

The motion was granted over the objections of the petitioner. After hearing the trial court rendered an amended decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff, which was granted earlier by the Court, is hereby reiterated and the decision rendered by this Court on September 30, 1980, is hereby amended. The dispositive portion of said decision should read now as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ordering the plaintiff (sic) and against the defendant, ordering the latter to pay the former the sum equivalent to 22% of the net profit of P8,000.00 per day from the time of judicial demand, until fully paid, plus the sum of P5,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and costs of suit. (p. 150, Rollo)

The petitioner appealed the trial court's amended decision to the then Intermediate Appellate Court. The questioned decision was further modified by the appellate court. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified, the dispositive portion thereof reading as follows:

1. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff by way of temperate damages 22% of the net profit of P2,000.00 a day from judicial demand to May 15, 1971;

2. Similarly, the sum equivalent to 22% of the net profit of P8,000.00 a day from May 16, 1971 to August 30, 1975;

3. And thereafter until fully paid the sum equivalent to 22% of the net profit of P8,000.00 a day.

Except as modified, the decision of the court a quo is affirmed in all other respects. (p. 102, Rollo)

Later, the appellate court, in a resolution, modified its decision and affirmed the lower court's decision. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, the dispositive portion of the amended judgment of the court a quo reading as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter to pay to the former the sum equivalent to 22% of the net profit of P8,000.00 per day from the time of judicial demand, until fully paid, plus the sum of P5,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and costs of suit.

is hereby retained in full and affirmed in toto it being understood that the date of judicial demand is July 13, 1978. (pp. 105-106, Rollo).

In the same resolution, the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied.

Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the private respondent is a partner of the petitioner in the setting up and operations of the panciteria. While the dispositive portions merely ordered the payment of the respondents share, there is no question from the factual findings that the respondent invested in the business as a partner. Hence, the two courts declared that the private petitioner is entitled to a share of the annual profits of the restaurant. The petitioner, however, claims that this factual finding is erroneous. Thus, the petitioner argues: "The complaint avers that private respondent extended 'financial assistance' to herein petitioner at the time of the establishment of the Sun Wah Panciteria, in return of which private respondent allegedly will receive a share in the profits of the restaurant. The same complaint did not claim that private respondent is a partner of the business. It was, therefore, a serious error for the lower court and the Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court to grant a relief not called for by the complaint. It was also error for the Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court to interpret or construe 'financial assistance' to mean the contribution of capital by a partner to a partnership;" (p. 75, Rollo)

The pertinent portions of the complaint state:

xxx xxx xxx

2. That on or about the latter (sic) of September, 1955, defendant sought the financial assistance of plaintiff in operating the defendant's eatery known as Sun Wah Panciteria, located in the given address of defendant; as a return for such financial assistance. plaintiff would be entitled to twenty-two percentum (22%) of the annual profit derived from the operation of the said panciteria;

3. That on October 1, 1955, plaintiff delivered to the defendant the sum of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00), Philippine Currency, of which copy for the receipt of such amount, duly acknowledged by the defendant is attached hereto as Annex "A", and form an integral part hereof; (p. 11, Rollo)

In essence, the private respondent alleged that when Sun Wah Panciteria was established, he gave P4,000.00 to the petitioner with the understanding that he would be entitled to twenty-two percent (22%) of the annual profit derived from the operation of the said panciteria. These allegations, which were proved, make the private respondent and the petitioner partners in the establishment of Sun Wah Panciteria because Article 1767 of the Civil Code provides that "By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves".

Therefore, the lower courts did not err in construing the complaint as one wherein the private respondent asserted his rights as partner of the petitioner in the establishment of the Sun Wah Panciteria, notwithstanding the use of the term financial assistance therein. We agree with the appellate court's observation to the effect that "... given its ordinary meaning, financial assistance is the giving out of money to another without the expectation of any returns therefrom'. It connotes an ex gratia dole out in favor of someone driven into a state of destitution. But this circumstance under which the P4,000.00 was given to the petitioner does not obtain in this case.' (p. 99, Rollo) The complaint explicitly stated that "as a return for such financial assistance, plaintiff (private respondent) would be entitled to twenty-two percentum (22%) of the annual profit derived from the operation of the said panciteria.' (p. 107, Rollo) The well-settled doctrine is that the '"... nature of the action filed in court is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action." (De Tavera v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., 113 SCRA 243; Alger Electric, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 37).

The appellate court did not err in declaring that the main issue in the instant case was whether or not the private respondent is a partner of the petitioner in the establishment of Sun Wah Panciteria.

The petitioner also contends that the respondent court gravely erred in giving probative value to the PC Crime Laboratory Report (Exhibit "J") on the ground that the alleged standards or specimens used by the PC Crime Laboratory in arriving at the conclusion were never testified to by any witness nor has any witness identified the handwriting in the standards or specimens belonging to the petitioner. The supposed standards or specimens of handwriting were marked as Exhibits "H" "H-1" to "H-24" and admitted as evidence for the private respondent over the vigorous objection of the petitioner's counsel.

The records show that the PC Crime Laboratory upon orders of the lower court examined the signatures in the two receipts issued separately by the petitioner to the private respondent and So Sia (Exhibits "A" and "D") and compared the signatures on them with the signatures of the petitioner on the various pay envelopes (Exhibits "H", "H-1" to 'H-24") of Antonio Ah Heng and Maria Wong, employees of the restaurant. After the usual examination conducted on the questioned documents, the PC Crime Laboratory submitted its findings (Exhibit J) attesting that the signatures appearing in both receipts (Exhibits "A" and "D") were the signatures of the petitioner.

The records also show that when the pay envelopes (Exhibits "H", "H-1" to "H-24") were presented by the private respondent for marking as exhibits, the petitioner did not interpose any objection. Neither did the petitioner file an opposition to the motion of the private respondent to have these exhibits together with the two receipts examined by the PC Crime Laboratory despite due notice to him. Likewise, no explanation has been offered for his silence nor was any hint of objection registered for that purpose.

Under these circumstances, we find no reason why Exhibit "J" should be rejected or ignored. The records sufficiently establish that there was a partnership.

The petitioner raises the issue of prescription. He argues: The Hon. Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court gravely erred in not resolving the issue of prescription in favor of petitioner. The alleged receipt is dated October 1, 1955 and the complaint was filed only on July 13, 1978 or after the lapse of twenty-two (22) years, nine (9) months and twelve (12) days. From October 1, 1955 to July 13, 1978, no written demands were ever made by private respondent.

The petitioner's argument is based on Article 1144 of the Civil Code which provides:

Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:

(1) Upon a written contract;

(2) Upon an obligation created by law;

(3) Upon a judgment.

in relation to Article 1155 thereof which provides:

Art. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extra-judicial demand by the creditor, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.'

The argument is not well-taken.

The private respondent is a partner of the petitioner in Sun Wah Panciteria. The requisites of a partnership which are — 1) two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund; and 2) intention on the part of the partners to divide the profits among themselves (Article 1767, Civil Code; Yulo v. Yang Chiao Cheng, 106 Phil. 110)-have been established. As stated by the respondent, a partner shares not only in profits but also in the losses of the firm. If excellent relations exist among the partners at the start of business and all the partners are more interested in seeing the firm grow rather than get immediate returns, a deferment of sharing in the profits is perfectly plausible. It would be incorrect to state that if a partner does not assert his rights anytime within ten years from the start of operations, such rights are irretrievably lost. The private respondent's cause of action is premised upon the failure of the petitioner to give him the agreed profits in the operation of Sun

Wah Panciteria. In effect the private respondent was asking for an accounting of his interests in the partnership.

It is Article 1842 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Articles 1144 and 1155 which is applicable. Article 1842 states:

The right to an account of his interest shall accrue to any partner, or his legal representative as against the winding up partners or the surviving partners or the person or partnership continuing the business, at the date of dissolution, in the absence or any agreement to the contrary.

Regarding the prescriptive period within which the private respondent may demand an accounting, Articles 1806, 1807, and 1809 show that the right to demand an accounting exists as long as the partnership exists. Prescription begins to run only upon the dissolution of the partnership when the final accounting is done.

Finally, the petitioner assails the appellate court's monetary awards in favor of the private respondent for being excessive and unconscionable and above the claim of private respondent as embodied in his complaint and testimonial evidence presented by said private respondent to support his claim in the complaint.

Apart from his own testimony and allegations, the private respondent presented the cashier of Sun Wah Panciteria, a certain Mrs. Sarah L. Licup, to testify on the income of the restaurant.

Mrs. Licup stated:

ATTY. HIPOLITO (direct examination to Mrs. Licup).

Q Mrs. Witness, you stated that among your duties was that you were in charge of the custody of the cashier's box, of the money, being the cashier, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q So that every time there is a customer who pays, you were the one who accepted the money and you gave the change, if any, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, after 11:30 (P.M.) which is the closing time as you said, what do you do with the money?

A We balance it with the manager, Mr. Dan Fue Leung.

ATTY. HIPOLITO:

I see.

Q So, in other words, after your job, you huddle or confer together?

A Yes, count it all. I total it. We sum it up.

Q Now, Mrs. Witness, in an average day, more or less, will you please tell us, how much is the gross income of the restaurant?

A For regular days, I received around P7,000.00 a day during my shift alone and during pay days I receive more than P10,000.00. That is excluding the catering outside the place.

Q What about the catering service, will you please tell the Honorable Court how many times a week were there catering services?

A Sometimes three times a month; sometimes two times a month or more.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now more or less, do you know the cost of the catering service?

A Yes, because I am the one who receives the payment also of the catering.

Q How much is that?

A That ranges from two thousand to six thousand pesos, sir.

Q Per service?

A Per service, Per catering.

Q So in other words, Mrs. witness, for your shift alone in a single day from 3:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. in the evening the restaurant grosses an income of P7,000.00 in a regular day?

A Yes.

Q And ten thousand pesos during pay day.?

A Yes.

(TSN, pp. 53 to 59, inclusive, November 15,1978)

xxx xxx xxx

COURT:

Any cross?

ATTY. UY (counsel for defendant):

No cross-examination, Your Honor. (T.S.N. p. 65, November 15, 1978). (Rollo, pp. 127-128)

The statements of the cashier were not rebutted. Not only did the petitioner's counsel waive the cross-examination on the matter of income but he failed to comply with his promise to produce pertinent records. When a subpoenaduces tecum was issued to the petitioner for the production of their records of sale, his counsel voluntarily offered to bring them to court. He asked for sufficient time prompting the court to cancel all hearings for January, 1981 and reset them to the later part of the following month. The petitioner's counsel never produced any books, prompting the trial court to state:

Counsel for the defendant admitted that the sales of Sun Wah were registered or recorded in the daily sales book. ledgers, journals and for this purpose, employed a bookkeeper. This inspired the Court to ask counsel for the defendant to bring said records and counsel for the defendant promised to bring those that were available. Seemingly, that was the reason why this case dragged for quite sometime. To bemuddle the issue, defendant instead of presenting the books where the same, etc. were recorded, presented witnesses who claimed to have supplied chicken, meat, shrimps, egg and other poultry products which, however, did not show the gross sales nor does it prove that the same is the best evidence. This Court gave warning to the defendant's counsel that if he failed to produce the books, the same will be considered a waiver on the part of the defendant to produce the said books inimitably showing decisive records on the income of the eatery pursuant to the Rules of Court (Sec. 5(e) Rule 131). "Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced." (Rollo, p. 145)

The records show that the trial court went out of its way to accord due process to the petitioner.

The defendant was given all the chance to present all conceivable witnesses, after the plaintiff has rested his case on February 25, 1981, however, after presenting several witnesses, counsel for defendant promised that he will present the defendant as his last witness. Notably there were several postponement asked by counsel for the defendant and the last one was on October 1, 1981 when he asked that this case be postponed for 45 days because said defendant was then in Hongkong and he (defendant) will be back after said period. The Court acting with great concern and understanding reset the hearing to November 17, 1981. On said date, the counsel for the defendant who again failed to present the defendant asked for another postponement, this time to November 24, 1981 in order to give said defendant another judicial magnanimity and substantial due process. It was however a condition in the order granting the postponement to said date that if the defendant cannot be presented, counsel is deemed to have waived the presentation of said witness and will submit his case for decision.

On November 24, 1981, there being a typhoon prevailing in Manila said date was declared a partial non-working holiday, so much so, the hearing was reset to December 7 and 22, 1981. On December 7, 1981, on motion of defendant's counsel, the same was again reset to December 22, 1981 as previously scheduled which hearing was understood as intransferable in character. Again on December 22, 1981, the defendant's counsel asked for postponement on the ground that the defendant was sick. the Court, after much tolerance and judicial magnanimity, denied said motion and ordered that the case be submitted for resolution based on the evidence on record

and gave the parties 30 days from December 23, 1981, within which to file their simultaneous memoranda. (Rollo, pp. 148-150)

The restaurant is located at No. 747 Florentino Torres, Sta. Cruz, Manila in front of the Republic Supermarket. It is near the corner of Claro M. Recto Street. According to the trial court, it is in the heart of Chinatown where people who buy and sell jewelries, businessmen, brokers, manager, bank employees, and people from all walks of life converge and patronize Sun Wah.

There is more than substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court. If the respondent court awarded damages only from judicial demand in 1978 and not from the opening of the restaurant in 1955, it is because of the petitioner's contentions that all profits were being plowed back into the expansion of the business. There is no basis in the records to sustain the petitioners contention that the damages awarded are excessive. Even if the Court is minded to modify the factual findings of both the trial court and the appellate court, it cannot refer to any portion of the records for such modification. There is no basis in the records for this Court to change or set aside the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court. The petitioner was given every opportunity to refute or rebut the respondent's submissions but, after promising to do so, it deliberately failed to present its books and other evidence.

The resolution of the Intermediate Appellate Court ordering the payment of the petitioner's obligation shows that the same continues until fully paid. The question now arises as to whether or not the payment of a share of profits shall continue into the future with no fixed ending date.

Considering the facts of this case, the Court may decree a dissolution of the partnership under Article 1831 of the Civil Code which, in part, provides:

Art. 1831. On application by or for a partner the court shall decree a dissolution whenever:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) A partner has been guilty of such conduct as tends to affect prejudicially the carrying on of the business;

(4) A partner willfully or persistently commits a breach of the partnership agreement, or otherwise so conducts himself in matters relating to the partnership business that it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with him;

xxx xxx xxx

(6) Other circumstances render a dissolution equitable.

There shall be a liquidation and winding up of partnership affairs, return of capital, and other incidents of dissolution because the continuation of the partnership has become inequitable.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the respondent court is AFFIRMED with a MODIFICATION that as indicated above, the partnership of the parties is ordered dissolved.

SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 126334.  November 23, 2001]

EMILIO EMNACE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE OF VICENTE TABANAO, SHERWIN TABANAO, VICENTE WILLIAM TABANAO, JANETTE TABANAO DEPOSOY, VICENTA MAY TABANAO VARELA, ROSELA TABANAO and VINCENT TABANAO, respondents.

Petitioner Emilio Emnace, Vicente Tabanao and Jacinto Divinagracia were partners in a business concern known as Ma. Nelma Fishing Industry.  Sometime in January of 1986, they decided to dissolve their partnership and executed an agreement of partition and distribution of the partnership properties among them, consequent to Jacinto Divinagracia’s withdrawal from the partnership.[1] Among the assets to be distributed were five (5) fishing boats, six (6) vehicles, two (2) parcels of land located at Sto. Niño and Talisay, Negros Occidental, and cash deposits in the local branches of the Bank of the Philippine Islands and Prudential Bank.

Throughout the existence of the partnership, and even after Vicente Tabanao’s untimely demise in 1994, petitioner failed to submit to Tabanao’s heirs any statement of assets and liabilities of the partnership, and to render an accounting of the partnership’s finances. Petitioner also reneged on his promise to turn over to Tabanao’s heirs the deceased’s 1/3 share in the total assets of the partnership, amounting to P30,000,000.00, or the sum of P10,000,000.00, despite formal demand for payment thereof.[2]

Consequently, Tabanao’s heirs, respondents herein, filed against petitioner an action for accounting, payment of shares, division of assets and damages. [3] In their complaint, respondents prayed as follows:

1.  Defendant be ordered to render the proper accounting of all the assets and liabilities of the partnership at bar; and

2.  After due notice and hearing defendant be ordered to pay/remit/deliver/surrender/yield to the plaintiffs the following:

A.        No less than One Third (1/3) of the assets, properties, dividends, cash, land(s), fishing vessels, trucks, motor vehicles, and other forms and substance of treasures which belong and/or should belong, had accrued and/or must accrue to the partnership;

B.        No less than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as moral damages;

C.        Attorney’s fees equivalent to Thirty Percent (30%) of the entire share/amount/award which the Honorable Court may resolve the plaintiffs as entitled to plus P1,000.00 for every appearance in court.[4]

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action or suit, and lack of capacity of the estate of Tabanao to sue.[5] On August 30, 1994, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.  It held that venue was properly laid because, while realties were involved, the action was directed against a particular person on the basis of his personal liability; hence, the action is not only a personal action but also an action in personam.  As regards petitioner’s argument of lack of jurisdiction over the action because the prescribed docket fee was not paid considering the huge amount involved in the claim, the trial court noted that a request for accounting was made in order that the exact value of the partnership may be ascertained and, thus, the correct docket fee may be paid.  Finally, the trial court held that the heirs of Tabanao had a right to sue in their own names, in view of the provision of Article 777 of the Civil Code, which states that the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.[6]

The following day, respondents filed an amended complaint,[7] incorporating the additional prayer that petitioner be ordered to “sell all (the partnership’s) assets and thereafter pay/remit/deliver/surrender/yield to the plaintiffs” their corresponding share in the proceeds thereof.  In due time, petitioner filed a manifestation and motion to dismiss, [8] arguing that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case due to the plaintiffs’ failure to pay the proper docket fees.  Further, in a supplement to his motion to dismiss,[9] petitioner also raised prescription as an additional ground warranting the outright dismissal of the complaint.

On June 15, 1995, the trial court issued an Order, [10] denying the motion to dismiss inasmuch as the grounds raised therein were basically the same as the earlier motion to dismiss which has been denied.  Anent the issue of prescription, the trial court ruled that prescription begins to run only upon the dissolution of the partnership when the final accounting is done.  Hence, prescription has not set in the absence of a final accounting.  Moreover, an action based on a written contract prescribes in ten years from the time the right of action accrues.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals,[11] raising the following issues:

I.   Whether or not respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of a case despite the failure to pay the required docket fee;

II.  Whether or not respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in insisting to try the case which involve (sic) a parcel of land situated outside of its territorial jurisdiction;

III. Whether or not respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the estate of the deceased to appear as party plaintiff, when there is no intestate case and filed by one who was never appointed by the court as administratrix of the estates; and

IV. Whether or not respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the case on the ground of prescription.

On August 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision, [12] dismissing the petition for certiorari, upon a finding that no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by the trial court in issuing the questioned orders denying petitioner’s motions to dismiss.

Not satisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review, raising the same issues resolved by the Court of Appeals, namely:

I.   Failure to pay the proper docket fee;

II.  Parcel of land subject of the case pending before the trial court is outside the said court’s territorial jurisdiction;

III. Lack of capacity to sue on the part of plaintiff heirs of Vicente Tabanao; and

IV. Prescription of the plaintiff heirs’ cause of action.

It can be readily seen that respondents’ primary and ultimate objective in instituting the action below was to recover the decedent’s 1/3 share in the partnership’s assets.  While they ask for an accounting of the partnership’s assets and finances, what they are actually asking is for the trial court to compel petitioner to pay and turn over their share, or the equivalent value thereof, from the proceeds of the sale of the partnership assets.  They also assert that until and unless a proper accounting is done, the exact value of the partnership’s assets, as well as their corresponding share therein, cannot be ascertained.  Consequently, they feel justified in not having paid the commensurate docket fee as required by the Rules of Court.

We do not agree.  The trial court does not have to employ guesswork in ascertaining the estimated value of the partnership’s assets, for respondents themselves voluntarily pegged the worth thereof at Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00).  Hence, this case is one which is really

not beyond pecuniary estimation, but rather partakes of the nature of a simple collection case where the value of the subject assets or amount demanded is pecuniarily determinable.[13] While it is true that the exact value of the partnership’s total assets cannot be shown with certainty at the time of filing, respondents can and must ascertain, through informed and practical estimation, the amount they expect to collect from the partnership, particularly from petitioner, in order to determine the proper amount of docket and other fees. [14] It is thus imperative for respondents to pay the corresponding docket fees in order that the trial court may acquire jurisdiction over the action.[15]

Nevertheless, unlike in the case of Manchester Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[16] where there was clearly an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to pay the correct docket fees, we see no attempt to cheat the courts on the part of respondents.   In fact, the lower courts have noted their expressed desire to remit to the court “any payable balance or lien on whatever award which the Honorable Court may grant them in this case should there be any deficiency in the payment of the docket fees to be computed by the Clerk of Court.”[17] There is evident willingness to pay, and the fact that the docket fee paid so far is inadequate is not an indication that they are trying to avoid paying the required amount, but may simply be due to an inability to pay at the time of filing.  This consideration may have moved the trial court and the Court of Appeals to declare that the unpaid docket fees shall be considered a lien on the judgment award.

Petitioner, however, argues that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in condoning the non-payment of the proper legal fees and in allowing the same to become a lien on the monetary or property judgment that may be rendered in favor of respondents.  There is merit in petitioner’s assertion.  The third paragraph of Section 16, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court states that:

The legal fees shall be a lien on the monetary or property judgment in favor of the pauper-litigant.

Respondents cannot invoke the above provision in their favor because it specifically applies to pauper-litigants.  Nowhere in the records does it appear that respondents are litigating as paupers, and as such are exempted from the payment of court fees.[18]

The rule applicable to the case at bar is Section 5(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which defines the two kinds of claims as: (1) those which are immediately ascertainable; and (2) those which cannot be immediately ascertained as to the exact amount.  This second class of claims, where the exact amount still has to be finally determined by the courts based on evidence presented, falls squarely under the third paragraph of said Section 5(a), which provides:

In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in accordance with the appraisal of the court, the difference of fee shall be refunded or paid as the case may be.  (Underscoring ours)

In Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Court of Appeals, [19] this Court pronounced that the above-quoted provision “clearly contemplates an initial payment of the filing fees corresponding to the estimated amount of the claim subject to adjustment as to what later may be proved.”[20] Moreover, we reiterated therein the principle that the payment of filing fees cannot be made contingent or dependent on the result of the case.  Thus, an initial payment of the docket fees based on an estimated amount must be paid simultaneous with the filing of the complaint.  Otherwise, the court would stand to lose the filing fees should the judgment later turn out to be adverse to any claim of the respondent heirs.

The matter of payment of docket fees is not a mere triviality.  These fees are necessary to defray court expenses in the handling of cases.  Consequently, in order to avoid tremendous losses to the judiciary, and to the government as well, the payment of docket fees cannot be made dependent on the outcome of the case, except when the claimant is a pauper-litigant.

Applied to the instant case, respondents have a specific claim – 1/3 of the value of all the partnership assets – but they did not allege a specific amount.  They did, however, estimate the partnership’s total assets to be worth Thirty Million Pesos (P30,000,000.00), in a letter[21] addressed to petitioner.  Respondents cannot now say that they are unable to make an estimate, for the said letter and the admissions therein form part of the records of this case.  They cannot avoid paying the initial docket fees by conveniently omitting the said amount in their amended complaint.  This estimate can be made the basis for the initial docket fees that respondents should pay. Even if it were later established that the amount proved was less or more than the amount alleged or estimated, Rule 141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court specifically provides that the court may refund the excess or exact additional fees should the initial payment be insufficient.  It is clear that it is only the difference between the amount finally awarded and the fees paid upon filing of this complaint that is subject to adjustment and which may be subjected to a lien.

In the oft-quoted case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion,[22] this Court held that when the specific claim “has been left for the determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment and it shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.” Clearly, the rules and jurisprudence contemplate the initial payment of filing and docket fees based on the estimated claims of the plaintiff, and it is only when there is a deficiency that a lien may be constituted on the judgment award until such additional fee is collected.

Based on the foregoing, the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint outright despite their failure to pay the proper docket fees.  Nevertheless, as in other procedural rules, it may be liberally construed in certain cases if only to secure a just and speedy disposition of an action.  While the rule is that the payment of the docket fee in the proper amount should be adhered to, there are certain exceptions which must be strictly construed.[23]

In recent rulings, this Court has relaxed the strict adherence to the Manchester doctrine, allowing the plaintiff to pay the proper docket fees within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.[24]

In the recent case of National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[25] this Court held that:

The court acquires jurisdiction over the action if the filing of the initiatory pleading is accompanied by the payment of the requisite fees, or, if the fees are not paid at the time of the filing of the pleading, as of the time of full payment of the fees within such reasonable time as the court may grant, unless, of course, prescription has set in the meantime.

It does not follow, however, that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint for failure of private respondent to pay the correct amount of docket fees.  Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time before the expiration of the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. If the plaintiff fails to comply within this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel.  In the latter case, the balance between the appropriate docket fees and the amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien or any award he may obtain in his favor.  (Underscoring ours)

Accordingly, the trial court in the case at bar should determine the proper docket fee based on the estimated amount that respondents seek to collect from petitioner, and direct them to pay the same within a reasonable time, provided the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period has not yet expired.  Failure to comply therewith, and upon motion by petitioner, the immediate dismissal of the complaint shall issue on jurisdictional grounds.

On the matter of improper venue, we find no error on the part of the trial court and the Court of Appeals in holding that the case below is a personal action which, under the Rules, may be commenced and tried where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiffs reside, at the election of the latter.[26]

Petitioner, however, insists that venue was improperly laid since the action is a real action involving a parcel of land that is located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court  a quo.  This contention is not well-taken.  The records indubitably show that respondents are asking that the assets of the partnership be accounted for, sold and distributed according to the agreement of the partners.  The fact that two of the assets of the partnership are parcels of land does not materially change the nature of the action.  It is an action in personam because it is an action against a person, namely, petitioner, on the basis of his personal liability.  It is not an action in remwhere the action is against the thing itself instead of against the person.[27] Furthermore, there is no showing that the parcels of land involved in this case are being disputed.  In fact, it is only incidental that part of the assets of the partnership under liquidation happen to be parcels of land.

The time-tested case of Claridades v. Mercader, et al.,[28] settled this issue thus:

The fact that plaintiff prays for the sale of the assets of the partnership, including the fishpond in question, did not change the nature or character of the action, such sale being merely a

necessary incident of the liquidation of the partnership, which should precede and/or is part of its process of dissolution.

The action filed by respondents not only seeks redress against petitioner.   It also seeks the enforcement of, and petitioner’s compliance with, the contract that the partners executed to formalize the partnership’s dissolution, as well as to implement the liquidation and partition of the partnership’s assets.  Clearly, it is a personal action that, in effect, claims a debt from petitioner and seeks the performance of a personal duty on his part. [29] In fine, respondents’ complaint seeking the liquidation and partition of the assets of the partnership with damages is a personal action which may be filed in the proper court where any of the parties reside.[30] Besides, venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction for venue touches more upon the substance or merits of the case.[31] As it is, venue in this case was properly laid and the trial court correctly ruled so.

On the third issue, petitioner asserts that the surviving spouse of Vicente Tabanao has no legal capacity to sue since she was never appointed as administratrix or executrix of his estate.  Petitioner’s objection in this regard is misplaced.  The surviving spouse does not need to be appointed as executrix or administratrix of the estate before she can file the action.   She and her children are complainants in their own right as successors of Vicente Tabanao.  From the very moment of Vicente Tabanao’s death, his rights insofar as the partnership was concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.[32]

Whatever claims and rights Vicente Tabanao had against the partnership and petitioner were transmitted to respondents by operation of law, more particularly by succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted. [33] Moreover, respondents became owners of their respective hereditary shares from the moment Vicente Tabanao died.[34]

A prior settlement of the estate, or even the appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as executrix or administratrix, is not necessary for any of the heirs to acquire legal capacity to sue.  As successors who stepped into the shoes of their decedent upon his death, they can commence any action originally pertaining to the decedent. [35] From the moment of his death, his rights as a partner and to demand fulfillment of petitioner’s obligations as outlined in their dissolution agreement were transmitted to respondents.  They, therefore, had the capacity to sue and seek the court’s intervention to compel petitioner to fulfill his obligations.

Finally, petitioner contends that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, arguing that respondents’ action prescribed four (4) years after it accrued in 1986.  The trial court and the Court of Appeals gave scant consideration to petitioner’s hollow arguments, and rightly so.

The three (3) final stages of a partnership are: (1) dissolution; (2) winding-up; and (3) termination.[36] The partnership, although dissolved, continues to exist and its legal personality is retained, at which time it completes the winding up of its affairs, including the partitioning and distribution of the net partnership assets to the partners.[37] For as long as the partnership

exists, any of the partners may demand an accounting of the partnership’s business.  Prescription of the said right starts to run only upon the dissolution of the partnership when the final accounting is done.[38]

Contrary to petitioner’s protestations that respondents’ right to inquire into the business affairs of the partnership accrued in 1986, prescribing four (4) years thereafter, prescription had not even begun to run in the absence of a final accounting.  Article 1842 of the Civil Code provides:

The right to an account of his interest shall accrue to any partner, or his legal representative as against the winding up partners or the surviving partners or the person or partnership continuing the business, at the date of dissolution, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

Applied in relation to Articles 1807 and 1809, which also deal with the duty to account, the above-cited provision states that the right to demand an accounting accrues at the date of dissolution in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.  When a final accounting is made, it is only then that prescription begins to run.  In the case at bar, no final accounting has been made, and that is precisely what respondents are seeking in their action before the trial court, since petitioner has failed or refused to render an accounting of the partnership’s business and assets.  Hence, the said action is not barred by prescription.

In fine, the trial court neither erred nor abused its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motions to dismiss.  Likewise, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in upholding the trial court’s orders.  Precious time has been lost just to settle this preliminary issue, with petitioner resurrecting the very same arguments from the trial court all the way up to the Supreme Court.  The litigation of the merits and substantial issues of this controversy is now long overdue and must proceed without further delay.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City, Branch 60, which is ORDERED to determine the proper docket fee based on the estimated amount that plaintiffs therein seek to collect, and direct said plaintiffs to pay the same within a reasonable time, provided the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period has not yet expired.  Thereafter, the trial court is ORDERED to conduct the appropriate proceedings in Civil Case No. 416-C.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

December 29, 1953G.R. No. L-6304

SERGIO V. SISON, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.HELEN J. MCQUAID, defendant-appellee.

On March 28, 1951, plaintiff brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against defendant, alleging that during the year 1938 the latter borrowed from him various sums of money, aggregating P2,210, to enable her to pay her obligation to the Bureau of Forestry and to add to her capital in her lumber business, receipt of the amounts advanced being acknowledged in a document, Exhibit A, executed by her on November 10, 1938 and attached to the complaint; that as defendant was not able to pay the loan in 1938, as she had promised, she proposed to take in plaintiff as a partner in her lumber business, plaintiff to contribute to the partnership the said sum of P2,210 due him from defendant in addition to his personal services; that plaintiff agreed to defendant’s proposal and, as a result, there was formed between them, under the provisions of the Civil Code, a partnership in which they were to share alike in the income or profits of the business, each to get one-half thereof; that in accordance with said contract, plaintiff, together with defendant, rendered services to the partnership without compensation from June 15, 1938 to December, 1941; that before the last World War, the partnership sold to the United States Army 230,000 board feet of lumber for P13,800, for the collection of which sum defendant, as manager of the partnership, filed the corresponding claim with the said army after the war; that the claim was “finally” approved and the full amount paid – the complaint does not say when – but defendant has persistently refused to deliver one-half of it, or P6,900, to plaintiff notwithstanding repeated demands, investing the whole sum of P13,800 for her own benefit. Plaintiff, therefore, prays for judgment declaring the existence of the alleged partnership and requiring the defendant to pay him the said sum of P6,900, in addition to damages and costs.

Notified of the action, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff’s action had already prescribed, that plaintiff’s claim was not provable under the Statute of Frauds, and that the complaint stated no cause of action. Sustaining the first ground, the court dismissed the case, whereupon, plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals; but that court has certified the case here on the ground that the appeal involved only questions of law.

It is not clear from the allegations of the complaint just when plaintiff’s cause of action accrued. Consequently, it cannot be determined with certainty whether that action has already prescribed or not. Such being the case, the defense of prescription can not be sustained on a mere motion to dismiss based on what appears on the face of the complaint.

But though the reason given for the order of dismissal be untenable, we find that the said order should be upheld on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, which is also one of the grounds on which defendant’s motion to dismiss was based. Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant one-half of the purchase price of lumber sold by the partnership to the United States Army. But his complaint does not show why he should be entitled to the sum he claims. It does not allege that there has been a liquidation of the partnership business and the said sum has been found to be due him as his share of the profits. The proceeds from the sale of a certain amount of lumber cannot be considered profits until costs and expenses have been deducted. Moreover, the profits of the business cannot be determined by taking into account the result of one particular transaction instead of all the transactions had. Hence, the need for a general liquidation before a member of a partnership may claim a specific sum as his share of the profits.

In view of the foregoing, the order of dismissal is affirmed, but on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action and without prejudice to the filing of an action for accounting or liquidation should that be what plaintiff really wants. Without costs in this instance.

G.R. No. L-47823             July 26, 1943

JOSE ORNUM and EMERENCIANA ORNUM, petitioners, vs.

MARIANO, LASALA, et al., respondent.

The following facts are practically admitted in the pleadings and briefs of the parties: The respondents (plaintiffs below) are natives of Taal, Batangas, and resided therein or in Manila. The petitioners (defendants below) are also natives of Taal, but resided in the barrio of Tan-agan, municipality of Tablas, Province of Romblon. In 1908 Pedro Lasala, father of the respondents, and Emerenciano Ornum formed a partnership, whereby the former, as capitalist, delivered the sum of P1,000 to the latter who, as industrial partner, was to conduct a business at his place of residence in Romblon. In 1912, when the assets of the partnership consisted of outstanding accounts and old stock of merchandise, Emerenciano Ornum, following the wishes of his wife, asked for the dissolution of the Lasala, Emerenciano Ornum looked for some one who could take his place and he suggested the names of the petitioners who accordingly became the new partners. Upon joining the business, the petitioners, contributed P505.54 as their capital, with the result that in the new partnership Pedro Lasala had a capital of P1,000, appraised value of the assets of the former partnership, plus the said P505.54 invested by the petitioners who, as industrial partners, were to run the business in Romblon. After the death of Pedro Lasala, his children (the respondents) succeeded to all his rights and interest in the partnership. The partners never knew each other personally. No formal partnership agreement was ever executed. The petitioners, as managing partners, were received one-half of the net gains, and the other half was to be divided between them and the Lasala group in proportion to the capital put in by each group. During the course divided, but the partners were given the election, as evidenced by the statements of accounts referred to in the decision of the Court of Appeals, to invest their respective shares in such profits as additional capital. The petitioners accordingly let a greater part of their profits as additional investment in the partnership. After twenty years the business had grown to such an extent that is total value, including profits, amounted to P44,618.67. Statements of accounts were periodically prepared by the petitioners and sent to the respondents who invariably did not make any objection thereto. Before the last statement of accounts was made, the respondents had received P5,387.29 by way of profits. The last and final statement of accounts, dated May 27, 1932, and prepared by the petitioners after the respondents had announced their desire to dissolve the partnership, read as follows:xxxx

After the receipt of the foregoing statement of accounts, Father Mariano Lasala, spokesman for the respondents, wrote the following letter to the petitioners on July 19, 1932:

xxxxxPursuant to the request contained in this letter, the petitioners remitted and paid to the respondents the total amount corresponding to them under the above-quoted statement of accounts which, however, was not signed by the latter. Thereafter the complaint in this case was filed by the respondents, praying for an accounting and final liquidation of the assets of the partnership. The Court of First Instance of Manila held that the last and final statement of accounts prepared by the petitioners was tacitly approved and accepted by the respondents who, by virtue of the above-quoted letter of Father Mariano Lasala, lost their right to a further accounting from the moment they received and accepted their shares as itemized in said statement. This judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals principally on the ground that as the final statement of accounts remains unsigned by the respondents, the same stands disapproved. The decision appealed by the petitioners thus said:

To support a plea of a stated account so as to conclude the parties in relation to all dealings between them, the accounting must be shown to have been final. (1 Cyc. 366.) All the first nine statements which the defendants sent the plaintiffs were partial settlements, while the last, although intended to be final, has not been signed.

We hold that the last and final statement of accounts hereinabove quoted, had been approved by the respondents. This approval resulted, by virtue of the letter of Father Mariano Lasala of July 19, 1932, quoted in part in the appealed decision from the failure of the respondents to object to the statement and from their promise to sign the same as soon as they received their shares as shown in said statement. After such shares had been paid by the petitioners and accepted by the respondents without any reservation, the approval of the statement of accounts was virtually confirmed and its signing thereby became a mere formality to be complied with by the respondents exclusively. Their refusal to sign, after receiving their shares, amounted to a waiver to that formality in favor of the petitioners who has already performed their obligation.

This approval precludes any right on the part of the respondents to a further liquidation, unless the latter can show that there was fraud, deceit, error or mistake in said approval. (Pastor, vs. Nicasio, 6 Phil., 152; Aldecoa & Co., vs. Warner, Barnes & Co., 16 Phil., 423; Gonsalez vs. Harty, 32 Phil. 328.) The Court of Appeals did not make any findings that there was fraud, and on the matter of error or mistake it merely said:

The question, then is, have mistakes, been committed in the statements sent appellants? Not only do plaintiffs so allege, and not only does not evidence so tend to prove, but the charge is seconded by the defendants themselves when in their counterclaims they said:

xxxx

In our opinion, the pronouncement that the evidence tends to prove that there were mistakes in the petitioners' statements of accounts, without specifying the mistakes, merely intimates as

suspicion and is not such a positive and unmistakable finding of fact (Cf. Concepcion vs. People, G.R. No. 48169, promulgated December 28, 1942) as to justify a revision, especially because the Court of Appeals has relied on the bare allegations of the parties, Even admitting that, as alleged by the petitioners in their counterclaim, they overpaid the respondents in the sum of P575.12, this error is essentially fatal to the latter's theory what the statement of accounts shows, and is therefore not the kind of error that calls for another accounting which will serve the purpose of the respondent's suit. Moreover, as the petitioners did not appeal from the decision of the Court abandoned such allegation in the Court of Appeals.

If the liquidation is ordered in the absence of any particular error, found as a fact, simply because no damage will be suffered by the petitioners in case the latter's final statement of the accounts proves to be correct, we shall be assuming a fundamentally inconsistent position. If there is not mistake, the only reason for a new accounting disappears. The petitioners may not be prejudiced in the sense that they will be required to pay anything to the respondents, but they will have to go to the trouble of itemizing accounts covering a period of twenty years mostly from memory, its appearing that no regular books of accounts were kept. Stated more emphatically, they will be told to do what seems to be hardly possible. When it is borne in mind that this case has been pending for nearly nine years and that, if another accounting is ordered, a costly action or proceeding may arise which may not be disposed of within a similar period, it is not improbable that the intended relief may in fact be the respondents' funeral.

We are reversing the appealed decision on the legal ground that the petitioners' final statement of accounts had been approved by the respondents and no justifiable reason (fraud, deceit, error or mistake) has been positively and unmistakably found by the Court of Appeals so as to warrant the liquidations sought by the respondents. In justice to the petitioners, however, we may add that, considering that they ran the business of the partnership for about twenty years at a place far from the residence of the respondents and without the latter's intervention; that the partners did not even know each other personally; that no formal partnership agreement was entered into which bound the petitioners under specific conditions; that the petitioners could have easily and freely alleged that the business became partial, or even a total, loss for any plausible reason which they could have concocted, it appearing that the partnership engaged in such uncertain ventures as agriculture, cattle raising and operation of rice mill, and the petitioners did not keep any regular books of accounts; that the petitioners were still frank enough to disclose that the original capital of P1,505.54 amounted, as of the date of the dissolution of the partnership, to P44,618.67; and that the respondents had received a total of P8,105.76 out of their capital of P1,000, without any effort on their part, we are reluctant even to make the conjecture that the petitioners had ever intended to, or actually did, take undue advantage of the absence and confidence of the respondents. Indeed, we feel justified in stating that the petitioners have here given a remarkable demonstration of the legendary honesty, good faith and industry with which the natives of Taal pursue business arrangements similar to the partnership in question, and we would hate, in the absence of any sufficient reason, to let such a beautiful legend have a distateful ending.

The appealed decision is hereby reversed and the petitioners (defendants below) absolved from the complaints of the respondents (plaintiffs below), with costs against the latter.