Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LEUNG, petitioner,
COURT
and
LEUNG
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:
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
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.
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.'
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.
A Yes.
Q So, in other words, after your job, you huddle or confer together?
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.
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:
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.
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 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
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.
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.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
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. Nio
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;
Thousand
Pesos
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.
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.
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 alien.
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
10
11
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:
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before this Court is the petition for review of the Decision of respondent
Court of Appeals[1] dismissing petitioners appeal in CA-G.R. CR No. 11960;
and affirming her conviction as well as the sentence imposed on her by the
Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 1395-M88[2] as follows:
WHEREFORE . . . the [c]ourt finds the accused Irma Idos guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay a fine
ofP135,000.00 and to pay private complainant Eddie Alarilla the
amount of the check in question of P135,000.00 at 12% interest
from the time of the filing of the [i]nformation (August 10, 1988)
until said amount has been fully paid.
Elevated from the Third Division[3] of this Court, the case was accepted for
resolution en banc on the initial impression that here, a constitutional
question might be involved.[4] It was opined that petitioners sentence,
particularly six months imprisonment, might be in violation of the
constitutional guarantee against imprisonment for non-payment of a debt.
[5]
A careful consideration of the issues presented in the petition as well as
the comments thereon and the findings of fact by the courts below in the
light of applicable laws and precedents convinces us, however, that the
constitutional dimension need not be reached in order to resolve those
issues adequately. For, as herein discussed, the merits of the petition could
be determined without delving into aspects of the cited constitutional
guarantee vis--vis provisions of the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22). There being no necessity therefor, we lay aside discussions of the
constitutional challenge to said law in deciding this petition.
12
complainant had known that the checks were to be funded from the
proceeds of the sale of the stocks and the collection of receivables. She
claimed that the complainant himself asked for the checks because he did
not want to continue in the tannery business and had no use for a share of
the stocks. (TSN, p. 7, April 14, 1991; id., pp. 8-9, Nov. 13, 1989; id., pp.
12, 16, 20, Feb. 14, 1990; id., p. 14, June 4, 1990).
On February 15, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment finding the
accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged. The accused-appellants
motion for annulment of the decision and for reconsideration was denied
by the trial court in its order dated April 12, 1991.[6]
Herein respondent court thereafter affirmed on appeal the decision of the
trial court. Petitioner timely moved for a reconsideration, but this was
subsequently denied by respondent court in its Resolution[7] dated June
11, 1993. Petitioner has now appealed to us by way of a petition
for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
During the pendency of this petition, this Court by a resolution[8] dated
August 30, 1993, took note of the compromise agreement executed
between the parties, regarding the civil aspect of the case, as manifested
by petitioner in a Motion to Render Judgment based on Compromise
Agreement[9]filed on August 5, 1993. After submission of the
Comment[10] by the Solicitor General, and the Reply[11] by petitioner, this
case was deemed submitted for decision.
Contending that the Court of Appeals erred in its affirmance of the trial
courts decision, petitioner cites the following reasons to justify the review
of her case:
1. The Honorable Court of Appeals has decided against the
innocence of the accused based on mere probabilities which, on
the contrary, should have warranted her acquittal on reasonable
doubt. Even then, the conclusion of the trial court is contrary to the
evidence on record, including private complainants judicial
admission that there was no consideration for the check.
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals has confused and merged into
one the legal concepts of dissolution, liquidation and termination of
a partnership and, on the basis of such misconception of the law,
disregarded the fact of absence of consideration of the check and
convicted the accused.
3. While this appeal was pending, the parties submitted for the
approval of the Honorable Court a compromise agreement on the
civil liability. The accused humbly submits that this supervening
event, which by its terms puts to rest any doubt the Court of
Appeals had entertained against the defense of lack of
consideration, should have a legal effect favorable to the accused,
13
14
These final stages in the life of a partnership are recognized under the Civil
Code that explicitly declares that upon dissolution, the partnership is not
terminated, to wit:
Art. 1828. The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the
relation of the partners caused by any partner ceasing to be
associated in the carrying on as distinguished from the winding up
of the business.
Art. 1829. On dissolution the partnership is not terminated, but
continues until the winding up of partnership affairs is
completed. (Underscoring supplied.)
The best evidence of the existence of the partnership, which was not yet
terminated (though in the winding up stage), were the unsold goods and
uncollected receivables, which were presented to the trial court. Since the
partnership has not been terminated, the petitioner and private
complainant remained as co-partners. The check was thus issued by the
petitioner to complainant, as would a partner to another, and not as
payment from a debtor to a creditor.
The more tenable view, one in favor of the accused, is that the check was
issued merely to evidence the complainants share in the partnership
property, or to assure the latter that he would receive in time his due share
therein. The alternative view that the check was in consideration of a buy
out is but a theory, favorable to the complainant, but lacking support in the
record; and must necessarily be discarded.
For there is nothing on record which even slightly suggests that petitioner
ever became interested in acquiring, much less keeping, the shares of the
complainant. What is very clear therefrom is that the petitioner exerted her
best efforts to sell the remaining goods and to collect the receivables of
the partnership, in order to come up with the amount necessary to satisfy
the value of complainants interest in the partnership at the dissolution
thereof. To go by accepted custom of the trade, we are more inclined to the
view that the subject check was issued merely to evidence complainants
interest in the partnership.Thus, we are persuaded that the check was not
intended to apply on account or for value; rather it should be deemed as
having been drawn without consideration at the time of issue.
Absent the first element of the offense penalized under B.P. 22, which is
the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply on account or for
value, petitioners issuance of the subject check was not an act
contemplated in nor made punishable by said statute.
As to the second issue, the Solicitor General contends that under the
Bouncing Checks Law, the elements of deceit and damage are not
essential or required to constitute a violation thereof. In his view, the only
essential element is the knowledge on the part of the maker or drawer of
15
the check of the insufficiency of his/her funds at the time of the issuance of
said check.
The Bouncing Checks Law makes the mere act of issuing a bad or
worthless check a special offense punishable by law. Malice or intent in
issuing the worthless check is immaterial, the offense beingmalum
prohibitum,[17] so goes the argument for the public respondents.
But of course this could not be an absolute proposition without descending
to absurdity. For if a check were issued by a kidnap victim to a kidnapper
for ransom, it would be absurd to hold the drawer liable under B.P. 22, if
the check is dishonored and unpaid. That would go against public policy
and common sense.
Public respondents further contend that since petitioner issued the check
in favor of complainant Alarilla and when notified that it was returned for
insufficiency of funds, failed to make good the check, then petitioner is
liable for violation of B.P. 22.[18] Again, this matter could not be all that
simple. For while the makers knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is
legally presumed from the dishonor of his checks for insufficiency of funds,
[19] this presumption is rebuttable.
In the instant case, there is only a prima facie presumption which did not
preclude the presentation of contrary evidence.[20] In fact, such contrary
evidence on two points could be gleaned from the record concerning (1)
lack of actual knowledge of insufficiency of funds; and (2) lack of adequate
notice of dishonor.
Noteworthy for the defense, knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit in
the drawee bank for the payment of a check upon its presentment is an
essential element of the offense.[21] It must be proved, particularly where
the prima facie presumption of the existence of this element has been
rebutted. The prima facie presumption arising from the fact of drawing,
issuing or making a check, the payment of which was subsequently refused
for insufficiency of funds is, moreover, not sufficient proof of guilt by the
issuer.
In the case of Nieva v. Court of Appeals,[22] it was held that the
subsequent dishonor of the subject check issued by accused merely
engendered the prima facie presumption that she knew of the insufficiency
of funds, but did not render the accused automatically guilty under B.P. 22.
[23]
The prosecution has a duty to prove all the elements of the crime,
including the acts that give rise to the prima facie presumption; petitioner,
on
the
other
hand,
has
a
right
to
rebut
the prima
facie presumption.Therefore, if such knowledge of insufficiency of funds is
proven to be actually absent or non-existent, the accused should not be
held liable for the offense defined under the first paragraph of Section 1 of
16
17
Having resolved the foregoing principal issues, and finding the petition
meritorious, we no longer need to pass upon the validity and legality or
necessity of the purported compromise agreement on civil liability between
the petitioner and the complainant.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED AND THE
PETITIONER ACQUITTED. The Decision of the respondent Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 11960 is hereby REVERSED and the Decision
of Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 1395-M-88 is hereby SET
ASIDE.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,
Kapunan, Panganiban, Martinez, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
Mendoza, J., no part, being ponente of appealed decision.
18
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Negros Occidental in Civil Cage No. 5343, entitled "Manuel
G. Singson, et all vs. Isabela Sawmill, et al.,", the dispositive portion of
which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is hereby held.
(1) that the contract, Appendix "F", of the Partial Stipulation of
Facts, Exh. "A", has not created a chattel mortgage lien on the
machineries and other chattels mentioned therein, all of which are
property of the defendant partnership "Isabela Sawmill", (2) that
the plaintiffs, as creditors of the defendant partnership, have a
preferred right over the assets of the said partnership and over the
proceeds of their sale at public auction, superior to the right of the
defendant Margarita G. Saldajeno, as creditor of the partners Leon
Garibay and Timoteo Tubungbanua; (3) that the defendant Isabela
Sawmill' is indebted to the plaintiff Oppen, Esteban, Inc. in the
amount of P1,288.89, with legal interest thereon from the filing of
the complaint on June 5, 1959; (4) that the same defendant is
indebted to the plaintiff Manuel G. Singsong in the total amount of
P5,723.50, with interest thereon at the rate of 1 % per month from
May 6, 1959, (the date of the statements of account, Exhs. "L" and
"M"), and 25% of the total indebtedness at the time of payment,
for attorneys' fees, both interest and attorneys fees being
stipulated in Exhs. "I" to "17", inclusive; (5) that the same
defendant is indebted to the plaintiff Agustin E. Tonsay in the
amount of P933.73, with legal interest thereon from the filing of
the complaint on June 5, 1959; (6) that the same defendant is
indebted to the plaintiff Jose L. Espinos in the amount of P1,579.44,
with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint on June
5, 1959; (7) that the same defendant is indebted to the plaintiff
Bacolod Southern Lumber Yard in the amount of Pl,048.78, with
19
20
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DEFENDANTAPPELLANT MARGARITA G. SALDAJENO BECAME PRIMARILY
LIABLE TO THE PLAINTFFS-APPELLEES FOR HAVING ACQUIRED
THE MORTGAGED CHATTLES IN THE FORECLOSURE SALE
CONDUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH CIVIL CASE NO. 5223.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
The defendants, Margarita G. Saldajeno and her husband Cecilio Saldajeno,
appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning the following errors:
I.
II.
III.
IN ISSUING
THE
WRIT OF
21
them, but they continued the business of said partnership under the same
firm name "Isabela Sawmill".
8. That on May 18, 1959 the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental
published two (2) notices that he would sell at public auction on June 5,
1959 at Isabela, Negros Occidental certain trucks, tractors, machinery,
officeequipment and other things that were involved in Civil Case No. 5223
of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, entitled "Margarita G.
Saldajeno vs. Leon Garibay, et al." See Appendices "G" and "G-1".
9. That on October 15, 1969 the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental
executed a Certificate ofSale in favor of the defendant Margarita G.
Saldajeno, as a result of the sale conducted by him on October 14 and 15,
1959 for the enforcement of the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 5223
of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, a certified copy of which
certificte of sale is hereto attached as Appendix "H".
10. That on October 20, 1959 the defendant Margarita G. Saldajeno
executed a deed of sale in favor of the Pan Oriental Lumber Company
transfering to the latter for the sum of P45,000.00 the trucks, tractors,
machinery, and other things that she had purchashed at a public auction
referred to in the foregoing paragraph, a certified true copy of which Deed
of Sale is hereto attached as Appendix "I".
11. The plaintiffs and the defendants Cecilio Saldajeno and Margarita G.
Saldajeno reserve the right to present additional evidence at the hearing of
this case.
Forming parts of the above copied stipulation are documents that were
marked as Appendices "A", "B", "C", "C-1", "C-2", "D", "E", "F", "F-1", "G",
"G-1", "H", and "I".
The plaintiffs and the defendants Cecilio and Margarita G. Saldajeno
presented additional evidence, mostly documentary, while the crossdefendants did not present any evidence. The case hardly involves
quetions of fact at all, but only questions of law.
The fact that the defendnat 'Isabela Sawmill' is indebted to theplaintiff
Oppen, Esteban, Inc. in the amount of P1,288.89 as the unpaid balance of
an obligation of P20,500.00 contracted on February 3, 10956 is expressly
admitted in paragraph 2 and 3 of the Stipulation, Exh. "A" and its
Appendices "B", "C", "C-1", and "C-2".
The plaintiff Agustin E. Tonssay proved by his own testimony and his Exhs.
"B" to"G" that from October 6, 1958 to November 8, 1958 he advanced a
total of P4,200.00 to the defendant 'Isabela Sawmill'. Agaist the said
22
Appendix "I" of the same stipulation Exh. "A" shows that on October 20,
1959 the defendant Margarita G. Saldajeno sold to the PAN ORIENTAL
LUMBER COMPANY for P45,000.00 part of the said properties that she had
bought at public aucton one week before.
23
reason appears, and none is here advanced by the parties, why an actin for
rescission (or resolution) should be differently treated, a "rescission" being
a counterpart, so to speak, of "specific performance'. In both cases, the
court would certainly have to undertake an investigation into facts that
would justify one act of the other. No award for damages may be had in an
action for resicssion without first conducting an inquiry into matters which
would justify the setting aside of a contract, in the same manner that
courts of first instance would have to make findings of fact and law in
actions not capable of pecuniary estimnation espressly held to be so by
this Court, arising from issues like those arised in Arroz v. Alojado, et al., L22153, March 31, 1967 (the legality or illegality of the conveyance sought
for and the determination of the validity of the money deposit made); De
Ursua v. Pelayo, L-13285, April 18, 1950 (validity of a judgment); Bunayog
v. Tunas, L-12707, December 23, 1959 (validity of a mortgage); Baito v.
Sarmiento, L-13105, August 25, 1960 (the relations of the parties, the right
to support created by the relation, etc., in actions for support); De Rivera,
et al. v. Halili, L-15159, September 30, 1963 (the validity or nullity of
documents upon which claims are predicated). Issues of the same nature
may be raised by a party against whom an action for rescission has been
brought, or by the plaintiff himself. It is, therefore, difficult to see why a
prayer for damages in an action for rescission should be taken as the basis
for concluding such action for resiccison should be taken as the basis for
concluding such action as one cpable of pecuniary estimation - a prayer
which must be included in the main action if plaintiff is to be compensated
for what he may have suffered as a result of the breach committed by
defendant, and not later on precluded from recovering damages by the
rule against splitting a cause of action and discouraging multiplicitly of
suits.
The foregoing doctrine was reiterated in The
Corporation vs. Tutaan, 10 where this Court held:
Good
Development
On the issue of which court has jurisdiction, the case of SENO vs.
Pastolante, et al., is in point. It was ruled therein that although the
purposes of an action is to recover an amount plus interest which comes
within the original jurisidction of the Justice of the Peace Court, yet when
said action involves the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage covering
personal properties valued at more than P2,000, (now P10,000.00) the
action should be instituted before the Court of First Instance.
In the instanct, case, the action is to recover the amount of
P1,520.00 plus interest and costs, and involves the foreclosure of a chattel
mortgage of personal properties valued at P15,340.00, so that it is clearly
within the competence of the respondent court to try and resolve.
In the light of the foregoing recent rulings, the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental did no err in exercising jurisidction over Civil Case No.
5343.
The appellants also contend that the chattel mortgage may no longer be
annulled because it had been judicially approved in Civil Case No. 4797 of
the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental and said chattel mortgage
had been ordered foreclosed in Civil Case No. 5223 of the same court.
On the question of whether a court may nullify a final judgment of another
court of co-equal, concurrent and coordinate jusridiction, this Court
originally ruled that:
A court has no power to interfere with the judgments or decrees of
a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal power to grant
the relief sought by the injunction.
The various branches of the Court of First Instance of Manila are in
a sense coordinate courts and cannot be allowed to interfere with each
others' judgments or decrees. 11
The foregoing doctrine was reiterated in a 1953 case
said:
12
24
It does not appear that the withdrawal of Margarita G. Saldajeno from the
partnership was published in the newspapers. The appellees and the public
in general had a right to expect that whatever, credit they extended to
Leon Garibay and Timoteo Tubungbanua doing the business in the name of
the partnership "Isabela Sawmill" could be enforced against the proeprties
of said partnership. The judicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage
executed in favor of Margarita G. Saldajeno did not relieve her from liability
to the creditors of the partnership.
25
The contention of the appellant that the appleees cannot bring an action to
annul the chattel mortgage of the propertiesof the partnership executed by
Leon Garibay and Timoteo Tubungbanua in favor of Margarita G. Saldajeno
has no merit.
As a rule, a contract cannot be assailed by one who is not a party thereto.
However, when a contract prejudices the rights of a third person, he may
file an action to annul the contract.
This Court has held that a person, who is not a party obliged principally or
subsidiarily under a contract, may exercised an action for nullity of the
contract if he is prejudiced in his rights with respect to one of the
contracting parties, and can show detriment which would positively result
to him from the contract in which he has no intervention. 21
The plaintiffs-appellees were prejudiced in their rights by the execution of
the chattel mortgage over the properties of the partnership "Isabela
Sawmill" in favopr of Margarita G. Saldajeno by the remaining partners,
Leon Garibay and Timoteo Tubungbanua. Hence, said appelees have a right
to file the action to nullify the chattel mortgage in question.
The portion of the decision appealed from ordering the appellants to pay
attorney's fees to the plaintiffs-appellees cannot be sustained. There is no
showing that the appellants displayed a wanton disregard of the rights of
the plaintiffs. Indeed, the appellants believed in good faith, albeit
erroneously, that they are not liable to pay the claims.
The defendants-appellants have a right to be reimbursed whatever
amounts they shall pay the appellees by their co-defendants Leon Garibay
26
27
28
obtaining in the case at bar, is established in Article 1840 of the Civil Code
which reads as follows:
Art. 1840. In the following cases creditors of the dissolved
partnership are also creditors of the person or partnership
continuing the business:
(1) When any new partner is admitted into an existing
partnership, or when any partner retires and assigns (or the
representative of the deceased partner assigns) his rights in
partnership property to two or more of the partners, or to one or
more of the partners and one or more third persons, if the business
is continued without liquidation of the partnership affairs;
(2) When all but one partner retire and assign (or the
representative of a deceased partner assigns) their rights in
partnership property to the remaining partner, who continues the
business without liquidation of partnership affairs, either alone or
with others;
(3) When any Partner retires or dies and the business of
the dissolved partnership is continued as set forth in Nos. 1 and 2
of this Article, with the consent of the retired partners or the
representative of the deceased partner, but without any
assignment of his right in partnership property;
(4) When all the partners or their representatives assign
their rights in partnership property to one or more third
persons who promise to pay the debts and who continue the
business of the dissolved partnership;
(5) When any partner wrongfully causes a dissolution and
remaining partners continue the businessunder the provisions of
article 1837, second paragraph, No. 2, either alone or with
others, and without liquidation of the partnership affairs;
(6) When a partner is expelled and the remaining
partners continue the business either alone or with others without
liquidation of the partnership affairs;
The
partnership
creditors of
partnership
contrary.
the
the
the
the
29
While the new Jade Mountain was entitled to decline to retain petitioner
Benjamin Yu in its employ, we consider that Benjamin Yu was very shabbily
treated by the new partnership. The old partnership certainly benefitted
from the services of Benjamin Yu who, as noted, previously ran the whole
marble quarrying, processing and exporting enterprise. His work
constituted value-added to the business itself and therefore, the new
partnership similarly benefitted from the labors of Benjamin Yu. It is worthy
of note that the new partnership did not try to suggest that there was any
cause consisting of some blameworthy act or omission on the part of Mr. Yu
which compelled the new partnership to terminate his services.
Nonetheless, the new Jade Mountain did not notify him of the change in
ownership of the business, the relocation of the main office of Jade
Mountain from Makati to Mandaluyong and the assumption by Mr. Willy Co
of control of operations. The treatment (including the refusal to honor his
claim for unpaid wages) accorded to Assistant General Manager Benjamin
Yu was so summary and cavalier as to amount to arbitrary, bad faith
treatment, for which the new Jade Mountain may legitimately be required
to respond by paying moral damages. This Court, exercising its discretion
and in view of all the circumstances of this case, believes that an
indemnity for moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00 is proper and
reasonable.
(d) six percent (6%) per annum legal interest computed on items (a) and
(b) above, commencing on 26 December 1989 and until fully paid; and
(e) ten percent (10%) attorney's fees on the total amount due from private
respondent Jade Mountain.
Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.
30
31
32
They also agreed to share in the profits from the joint venture, thus:
1. The DEVELOPER shall be entitled to sixty percent (60%) of the
net revenue or income of the Joint Venture project, after deducting
all expenses incurred in connection with the land development
(such as administrative management and construction expenses),
and marketing (such as sales, advertising and promotions), and
2. The LANDOWNERS shall be entitled to forty percent (40%) of the
net revenue or income of the Joint Venture project, after deducting
all the above-mentioned expenses.8
30%
Balance
70%
= P 69,360,000
P 69,360,000.00
= 161,840,000
x .03069 x 48 = P238,409,740
238,409,740.00
P307,769,740.0
0
EXPENSES:
Primelink submitted to the Lazatins its Projection of the Sales-Income-Cost
of the project:
SALES-INCOME-COST PROJECTION
lawphil.net
SELLING PRICE
COST PRICE
DIFFERENCE
INCOME
less: A
Building expenses
P 92,480,000.00
18,496,000.00
4,624,000.00
4,624,000.00
CLUSTER:
A1 3,200,000
A2 1,260,000
1,940,000
24
= P 46,560,000.00
TWIN:
B1 2,500,000
B2 960,000
1,540,000
24
C2 1,400,000
2,100,000
=
16
= 36,960,000.00
SINGLE:
C1 3,500,000
= 33,600,000.00
ROW-TYPE TOWNHOMES:
D1 1,600,000
D2 700,000
= 900,000 x 24
= 21,600,000.00
P138,720,000.0
0
(GROSS)
P231,200,000.0
0
Total
Building
(A2+B2+C2+D2)
= 92,480,000.00
Expense
P132,224,000.0
0
132,224,000.00
Total Expenses
P175,545,740.0
09
33
34
On June 25, 1998, defendants filed, via registered mail, their "Answer with
Counterclaim and Opposition to the Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction."25 On July 8, 1998, defendants filed a Motion to Set
Aside the Order of Default. 26 This was opposed by plaintiffs. 27 In an
Order28 dated July 14, 1998, the RTC denied defendants motion to set
aside the order of default and ordered the reception of plaintiffs evidence
ex parte. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration 29 of the July 14,
1998 Order, which the RTC denied in its Order 30dated October 21, 1998.
Defendants thereafter interposed an appeal to the CA assailing the Order
declaring them in default, as well as the Order denying their motion to set
aside the order of default, alleging that these were contrary to facts of the
case, the law and jurisprudence. 31 On September 16, 1999, the appellate
court issued a Resolution32 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the
Orders appealed from were interlocutory in character and, therefore, not
appealable. No motion for reconsideration of the Order of the dismissal was
filed by defendants.
In the meantime, plaintiffs adduced ex parte their testimonial and
documentary evidence. On April 17, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision,
the dispositive part of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants as follows:
1. Ordering the rescission of the Joint Venture Agreement as of the
date of filing of this complaint;
2. Ordering the defendants to return possession, including all
improvements therein, of the real estate property belonging to the
plaintiffs which is described in, and covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-10848 of the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City, and
located in Barangay Anulin, City of Tagaytay;
3. Ordering the defendants to turn over all documents, records or
papers that have been executed, prepared and retained in
connection with any contract to sell or deed of sale of all lots/units
sold during the effectivity of the joint venture agreement;
4. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum
of P1,041,524.26 representing their share of the net income of
the P2,603,810.64 as of September 30, 1995, as stipulated in the
joint venture agreement;
5. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs attorneys fees in
the amount of P104,152.40;
35
Under the intolerable circumstances, the plaintiffs could not have opted for
some other recourse but to file the present action to enforce their rights. x
x x34
On May 15, 2000, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Execution Pending
Appeal35 alleging defendants dilatory tactics for its allowance. This was
opposed by defendants.36
On May 22, 2000, the RTC resolved the motion for execution pending
appeal in favor of plaintiffs. 37 Upon posting a bond of P1,000,000.00 by
plaintiffs, a writ of execution pending appeal was issued on June 20,
2000.38
Defendants appealed the decision to the CA on the following assignment of
errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE WITHOUT FIRST
REFERRING THE COMPLAINT FOR VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION (RA NO. 876),
CONTRARY TO THE MANDATED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION CLAUSE UNDER
THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, AND THE DOCTRINE IN "MINDANAO
PORTLAND CEMENT CORPORATION V. MCDONOUGH CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY OF FLORIDA" (19 SCRA 814-815).
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ISSUING A WRIT OF EXECUTION PENDING
APPEAL EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF GOOD AND COMPELLING REASONS TO
JUSTIFY SAID ISSUANCE, AND DESPITE PRIMELINKS STRONG OPPOSITION
THERETO.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO DECIDE PRIMELINKS MOTION TO
QUASH THE WRIT OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL AND THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS RETAINED ITS
JURISDICTION TO RULE ON ALL QUESTIONS RELATED TO EXECUTION.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RESCINDING THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT
ALTHOUGH PRIMELINK HAS SUBSTANTIALLY DEVELOPED THE PROJECT AND
HAS SPENT MORE OR LESS FORTY MILLION PESOS, AND DESPITE
36
SO ORDERED.40
Citing the ruling of this Court in Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing
Corporation,41 the appellate court ruled that, under Philippine law, a joint
venture is a form of partnership and is to be governed by the laws of
partnership.
The
aggrieved
parties
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration,42 which the CA denied in its Resolution 43 dated March 7,
2005.
Petitioners thus filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, alleging
that:
Petitioners point out that respondents did not pray in their complaint that
they be declared the owners and entitled to the possession of the
improvements made by petitioner Primelink on the property; neither did
they adduce evidence to prove their entitlement to said improvements. It
follows, petitioners argue, that respondents were not entitled to the
improvements although petitioner Primelink was declared in default.
They also aver that, under Article 1384 of the New Civil Code, rescission
shall be only to the extent necessary to cover the damages caused and
that, under Article 1385 of the same Code, rescission creates the obligation
to return the things which were not object of the contract, together with
their fruits, and the price with its interest; consequently, it can be effected
37
only when respondents can return whatever they may be obliged to return.
Respondents who sought the rescission of the JVA must place petitioner
Primelink in the status quo. They insist that respondents cannot rescind
and, at the same time, retain the consideration, or part of the
consideration received under the JVA. They cannot have the benefits of
rescission without assuming its burden. All parties must be restored to
their original positions as nearly as possible upon the rescission of a
contract. In the event that restoration to the status quo is impossible,
rescission may be granted if the Court can balance the equities and fashion
an appropriate remedy that would be equitable to both parties and afford
complete relief.
Petitioners insist that being defaulted in the court a quo would in no way
defeat their claim for reimbursement because "[w]hat matters is that the
improvements exist and they cannot be denied." 46 Moreover, they point
out, the ruling of this Court in Aurbach v. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing
Corporation47 cited by the CA is not in point.
On the other hand, the CA ruled that although respondents therein
(plaintiffs below) did not specifically pray for their takeover of the property
and for the possession of the improvements on the parcels of land,
nevertheless, respondents were entitled to said relief as a necessary
consequence of the ruling of the trial court ordering the rescission of the
JVA. The appellate court cited the ruling of this Court in the Aurbach case
and Article 1838 of the New Civil Code, to wit:
As a general rule, the relation of the parties in joint ventures is governed
by their agreement. When the agreement is silent on any particular issue,
the general principles of partnership may be resorted to. 48
Respondents, for their part, assert that Articles 1380 to 1389 of the New
Civil Code deal with rescissible contracts. What applies is Article 1191 of
the New Civil Code, which reads:
ART. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in
case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon
him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of
the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also
seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should
become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause
authorizing the fixing of a period.
38
would seem therefore that, under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of
partnership and should thus be governed by the laws of partnership. The
Supreme Court has, however, recognized a distinction between these two
business forms, and has held that although a corporation cannot enter into
a partnership contract, it may, however, engage in a joint venture with
others. (At p. 12, Tuazon v. Bolanos, 95 Phil. 906 [1954]; Campos and
Lopez Campos Comments, Notes and Selected Cases, Corporation Code
1981) (Emphasis Supplied)
The LAZATINs were able to establish fraud on the part of PRIMELINK which,
in the words of the court a quo, was a pattern of what appears to be a
scheme or plot to reduce and eventually blot out the net incomes
generated from sales of housing units by the defendants. Under Article
1838 of the Civil Code, where the partnership contract is rescinded on the
ground of the fraud or misrepresentation of one of the parties thereto, the
party entitled to rescind is, without prejudice to any other right is entitled
to a lien on, or right of retention of, the surplus of the partnership
property after satisfying the partnership liabilities to third persons for any
sum of money paid by him for the purchase of an interest in the
partnership and for any capital or advance contributed by him. In the
instant case, the joint venture still has outstanding liabilities to third
parties or the buyers of the property.
It is not amiss to state that title to the land or TCT No. T-10848 which is
now held by Chinabank for safekeeping pursuant to the Escrow Agreement
executed between Primelink Properties and Development Corporation and
Ma. Clara T. Lazatin-Magat should also be returned to the LAZATINs as a
necessary consequence of the order of rescission of contract. The reason
for the existence of the Escrow Agreement has ceased to exist when the
joint venture agreement was rescinded.49
Respondents stress that petitioners must bear any damages or losses they
may have suffered. They likewise stress that they did not enrich
themselves at the expense of petitioners.
In reply, petitioners assert that it is unjust and inequitable for respondents
to retain the improvements even if their share in the P1,041,524.26 of the
net income of the property and the sale of the land were to be deducted
from the value of the improvements, plus administrative and marketing
expenses in the total amount of P40,000,000.00. Petitioners will still be
entitled to an accounting from respondents. Respondents cannot deny the
existence and nature of said improvements as they are visible to the naked
eye.
The threshold issues are the following: (1) whether respondents are
entitled to the possession of the parcels of land covered by the JVA and the
improvements thereon introduced by petitioners as their contribution to
the JVA; (2) whether petitioners are entitled to reimbursement for the value
of the improvements on the parcels of land.
The petition has no merit.
On the first issue, we agree with petitioners that respondents did not
specifically pray in their complaint below that possession of the
improvements on the parcels of land which they contributed to the JVA be
transferred to them. Respondents made a specific prayer in their complaint
that, upon the rescission of the JVA, they be placed in possession of the
parcels of land subject of the agreement, and for other "reliefs and such
other remedies as are just and equitable in the premises." However, the
trial court was not precluded from awarding possession of the
improvements on the parcels of land to respondents in its decision. Section
2(c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading shall specify the
relief sought but it may add as general prayer for such further or other
relief as may be deemed just and equitable. Even without the prayer for a
specific remedy, proper relief may be granted by the court if the facts
alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant. 50 The
court shall grant relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if
no such relief is prayed for. 51 The prayer in the complaint for other reliefs
equitable and just in the premises justifies the grant of a relief not
otherwise specifically prayed for.52
The trial court was not proscribed from placing respondents in possession
of the parcels of land and the improvements on the said parcels of land. It
bears stressing that the parcels of land, as well as the improvements made
thereon, were contributed by the parties to the joint venture under the JVA,
hence, formed part of the assets of the joint venture. 53 The trial court
declared that respondents were entitled to the possession not only of the
parcels of land but also of the improvements thereon as a consequence of
its finding that petitioners breached their agreement and defrauded
respondents of the net income under the JVA.
On the second issue, we agree with the CA ruling that petitioner Primelink
and respondents entered into a joint venture as evidenced by their JVA
which, under the Courts ruling in Aurbach, is a form of partnership, and as
such is to be governed by the laws on partnership.
When the RTC rescinded the JVA on complaint of respondents based on the
evidence on record that petitioners willfully and persistently committed a
breach of the JVA, the court thereby dissolved/cancelled the
partnership.54With the rescission of the JVA on account of petitioners
fraudulent acts, all authority of any partner to act for the partnership is
terminated except so far as may be necessary to wind up the partnership
affairs or to complete transactions begun but not yet finished. 55 On
dissolution, the partnership is not terminated but continues until the
39
(b) The right, as against each partner who has caused the
dissolution wrongfully, to damages for breach of the
agreement.
(2) The partners who have not caused the dissolution wrongfully, if
they all desire to continue the business in the same name either by
themselves or jointly with others, may do so, during the agreed
term for the partnership and for that purpose may possess the
partnership property, provided they secure the payment by bond
approved by the court, or pay to any partner who has caused the
dissolution wrongfully, the value of his interest in the partnership
at the dissolution, less any damages recoverable under the second
paragraph, No. 1(b) of this article, and in like manner indemnify
him against all present or future partnership liabilities.
(3) A partner who has caused the dissolution wrongfully shall have:
(a) If the business is not continued under the provisions of
the second paragraph, No. 2, all the rights of a partner
under the first paragraph, subject to liability for damages
in the second paragraph, No. 1(b), of this article.
(b) If the business is continued under the second
paragraph, No. 2, of this article, the right as against his copartners and all claiming through them in respect of their
interests in the partnership, to have the value of his
interest in the partnership, less any damage caused to his
co-partners by the dissolution, ascertained and paid to him
in cash, or the payment secured by a bond approved by
the court, and to be released from all existing liabilities of
the partnership; but in ascertaining the value of the
partners interest the value of the good-will of the business
shall not be considered.
And under Article 1838 of the New Civil Code, the party entitled to rescind
is, without prejudice to any other right, entitled:
(1) To a lien on, or right of retention of, the surplus of the
partnership property after satisfying the partnership liabilities to
third persons for any sum of money paid by him for the purchase of
an interest in the partnership and for any capital or advances
contributed by him;
(2) To stand, after all liabilities to third persons have been satisfied,
in the place of the creditors of the partnership for any payments
made by him in respect of the partnership liabilities; and
40
41
42
vs. CONSTANCIO
B.
DECISION
PARAS, J.:
This is a direct appeal to this Court from a decision ** of the then Court of
First Instance of Davao, Seventh Judicial District, Branch III, in Civil Case
No. 3518, dismissing appellant's complaint.
As found by the trial court, the antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
On January 14, 1955, Maglana and Rojas executed their Articles of CoPartnership (Exhibit "A") called Eastcoast Development Enterprises (EDE)
with only the two of them as partners. The partnership EDE with an
indefinite term of existence was duly registered on January 21, 1955 with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
One of the purposes of the duly-registered partnership was to "apply or
secure timber and/or minor forests products licenses and concessions over
public and/or private forest lands and to operate, develop and promote
such forests rights and concessions." (Rollo, p. 114).
During the period from January 14, 1955 to April 30, 1956, there was no
operation of said partnership (Record on Appeal [R.A.] p. 946).
Two weeks after March 17, 1957, Rojas told Maglana that he will not be
able to comply with the promised contributions and he will not work as
logging superintendent. Maglana then told Rojas that the latter's share will
just be 20% of the net profits. Such was the sharing from 1957 to 1959
without complaint or dispute (Decision, R.A. 949).: nad
On March 17, 1957, Maglana wrote Rojas reminding the latter of his
obligation to contribute, either in cash or in equipment, to the capital
investments of the partnership as well as his obligation to perform his
duties as logging superintendent.
43
Meanwhile, Rojas took funds from the partnership more than his
contribution. Thus, in a letter dated February 21, 1961 (Exhibit "10")
Maglana notified Rojas that he dissolved the partnership (R.A. 949).
On April 7, 1961, Rojas filed an action before the Court of First Instance of
Davao against Maglana for the recovery of properties, accounting,
receivership and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 3518 (Record on
Appeal, pp. 1-26).
Rojas' petition for appointment of a receiver was denied (R.A. 894).
Upon motion of Rojas on May 23, 1961, Judge Romero appointed
commissioners to examine the long and voluminous accounts of the
Eastcoast Development Enterprises (Ibid., pp. 894-895).
The motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Maglana on June 21, 1961
(Ibid., pp. 102-114) was denied by Judge Romero for want of merit (Ibid., p.
125). Judge Romero also required the inclusion of the entire year 1961 in
the report to be submitted by the commissioners (Ibid., pp. 138-143).
Accordingly, the commissioners started examining the records and
supporting papers of the partnership as well as the information furnished
them by the parties, which were compiled in three (3) volumes.
On May 11, 1964, Maglana filed his motion for leave of court to amend his
answer with counterclaim, attaching thereto the amended answer (Ibid.,
pp. 26-336), which was granted on May 22, 1964 (Ibid., p. 336).
On May 27, 1964, Judge M.G.
Commissioners' Report (Ibid., p. 337).
Reyes
approved
the
submitted
On June 29, 1965, Rojas filed his motion for reconsideration of the order
dated May 27, 1964 approving the report of the commissioners which was
opposed by the appellee.
On September 19, 1964, appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied
(Ibid., pp. 446-451).
A mandatory pre-trial was conducted on September 8 and 9, 1964 and the
following issues were agreed upon to be submitted to the trial court:
(a) The nature of partnership and the legal relations of Maglana
and Rojas after the dissolution of the second partnership;
(b) Their sharing basis: whether in proportion to their contribution
or share and share alike;
(c) The ownership of properties bought by Maglana in his wife's
name;
(d) The damages suffered and who should be liable for them; and
(e) The legal effect of the letter dated February 23, 1961 of
Maglana dissolving the partnership (Decision, R.A. pp. 895-896).nad
After trial, the lower court rendered its decision on March 11, 1968, the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, the above facts and issues duly considered,
judgment is hereby rendered by the Court declaring that:
"1. The nature of the partnership and the legal relations of Maglana
and Rojas after Pahamotang retired from the second partnership,
that is, after August 31, 1957, when Pahamotang was finally paid
his share the partnership of the defendant and the plaintiff is
one of a de facto and at will;
"2. Whether the sharing of partnership profits should be on the
basis of computation, that is the ratio and proportion of their
respective contributions, or on the basis of share and share alike
this covered by actual contributions of the plaintiff and the
defendant and by their verbal agreement; that the sharing of
profits and losses is on the basis of actual contributions; that from
1957 to 1959, the sharing is on the basis of 80% for the defendant
and 20% for the plaintiff of the profits, but from 1960 to the date of
dissolution, February 23, 1961, the plaintiff's share will be on the
basis of his actual contribution and, considering his indebtedness
to the partnership, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the
profits of the said partnership;
"3. As to whether the properties which were bought by the
defendant and placed in his or in his wife's name were acquired
with partnership funds or with funds of the defendant and the
Court declares that there is no evidence that these properties were
acquired by the partnership funds, and therefore the same should
not belong to the partnership;
"4. As to whether damages were suffered and, if so, how much,
and who caused them and who should be liable for them the
Court declares that neither parties is entitled to damages, for as
already stated above it is not a wise policy to place a price on the
right of a person to litigate and/or to come to Court for the
assertion of the rights they believe they are entitled to;
"5. As to what is the legal effect of the letter of defendant to the
plaintiff dated February 23, 1961; did it dissolve the partnership or
not the Court declares that the letter of the defendant to the
plaintiff dated February 23, 1961, in effect dissolved the
partnership;
"6. Further, the Court relative to the canteen, which sells
foodstuffs, supplies, and other merchandise to the laborers and
employees of the Eastcoast Development Enterprises, the
COURT DECLARES THE SAME AS NOT BELONGING TO THE
PARTNERSHIP;
44
"7. That the alleged sale of forest concession Exhibit 9-B, executed
by Pablo Angeles David is VALID AND BINDING UPON THE
PARTIES AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF MAGLANA'S
CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARTNERSHIP;
"8. Further, the Court orders and directs plaintiff Rojas to pay or
turn over to the partnership the amount of P69,000.00 the profits
he received from the CMS Estate, Inc. operated by him;
"9. The claim that plaintiff Rojas should be ordered to pay the
further sum of P85,000.00 which according to him he is still
entitled to receive from the CMS Estate, Inc. is hereby denied
considering that it has not yet been actually received, and further
the receipt is merely based upon an expectancy and/or still
speculative;
"10. The Court also directs and orders plaintiff Rojas to pay the
sum of P62,988.19 his personal account to the partnership;
"11. The Court also credits the defendant the amount of
P85,000.00 the amount he should have received as logging
superintendent, and which was not paid to him, and this should be
considered as part of Maglana's contribution likewise to the
partnership; and
"12. The complaint is hereby dismissed with costs against the
plaintiff.: rd
"SO ORDERED." Decision, Record on Appeal, pp. 985-989).
Rojas interposed the instant appeal.
The main issue in this case is the nature of the partnership and legal
relationship of the Maglana-Rojas after Pahamotang retired from the
second partnership.
The lower court is of the view that the second partnership superseded the
first, so that when the second partnership was dissolved there was no
written contract of co-partnership; there was no reconstitution as provided
for in the Maglana, Rojas and Pahamotang partnership contract. Hence, the
partnership which was carried on by Rojas and Maglana after the
dissolution of the second partnership was a de facto partnership and at
will. It was considered as a partnership at will because there was no term,
express or implied; no period was fixed, expressly or impliedly (Decision,
R.A. pp. 962-963).
On the other hand, Rojas insists that the registered partnership under the
firm name of Eastcoast Development Enterprises (EDE) evidenced by the
Articles of Co-Partnership dated January 14, 1955 (Exhibit "A") has not
been novated, superseded and/or dissolved by the unregistered articles of
co-partnership among appellant Rojas, appellee Maglana and Agustin
Pahamotang, dated March 4, 1956 (Exhibit "C") and accordingly, the terms
and stipulations of said registered Articles of Co-Partnership (Exhibit "A")
should govern the relations between him and Maglana. Upon withdrawal of
Agustin Pahamotang from the unregistered partnership (Exhibit "C"), the
legally constituted partnership EDE (Exhibit "A") continues to govern the
relations between them and it was legal error to consider a de facto
partnership between said two partners or a partnership at will. Hence, the
letter of appellee Maglana dated February 23, 1961, did not legally dissolve
the registered partnership between them, being in contravention of the
partnership agreement agreed upon and stipulated in their Articles of CoPartnership (Exhibit "A"). Rather, appellant is entitled to the rights
enumerated in Article 1837 of the Civil Code and to the sharing profits
between them of "share and share alike" as stipulated in the registered
Articles of Co-Partnership (Exhibit "A").
After a careful study of the records as against the conflicting claims of
Rojas and Maglana, it appears evident that it was not the intention of the
partners to dissolve the first partnership, upon the constitution of the
second one, which they unmistakably called an "Additional Agreement"
(Exhibit "9-B") (Brief for Defendant-Appellee, pp. 24-25). Except for the fact
that they took in one industrial partner; gave him an equal share in the
profits and fixed the term of the second partnership to thirty (30) years,
everything else was the same. Thus, they adopted the same name,
EASTCOAST DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, they pursued the same
purposes and the capital contributions of Rojas and Maglana as stipulated
in both partnerships call for the same amounts. Just as important is the
fact that all subsequent renewals of Timber License No. 35-36 were
secured in favor of the First Partnership, the original licensee. To all intents
and purposes therefore, the First Articles of Partnership were only
amended, in the form of Supplementary Articles of Co-Partnership (Exhibit
"C") which was never registered (Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, p. 5).
Otherwise stated, even during the existence of the second partnership, all
business transactions were carried out under the duly registered articles.
As found by the trial court, it is an admitted fact that even up to now, there
are still subsisting obligations and contracts of the latter (Decision, R.A. pp.
950-957). No rights and obligations accrued in the name of the second
partnership except in favor of Pahamotang which was fully paid by the duly
registered partnership (Decision, R.A., pp. 919-921).
On the other hand, there is no dispute that the second partnership was
dissolved by common consent. Said dissolution did not affect the first
partnership which continued to exist. Significantly, Maglana and Rojas
agreed to purchase the interest, share and participation in the second
partnership of Pahamotang and that thereafter, the two (Maglana and
Rojas) became the owners of equipment contributed by Pahamotang. Even
more convincing, is the fact that Maglana on March 17, 1957, wrote Rojas,
reminding the latter of his obligation to contribute either in cash or in
equipment, to the capital investment of the partnership as well as his
obligation to perform his duties as logging superintendent. This reminder
cannot refer to any other but to the provisions of the duly registered
Articles of Co-Partnership. As earlier stated, Rojas replied that he will not
45
be able to comply with the promised contributions and he will not work as
logging superintendent. By such statements, it is obvious that Roxas
understood what Maglana was referring to and left no room for doubt that
both considered themselves governed by the articles of the duly registered
partnership.
Under the circumstances, the relationship of Rojas and Maglana after the
withdrawal of Pahamotang can neither be considered as a De Facto
Partnership, nor a Partnership at Will, for as stressed, there is an existing
partnership, duly registered.
As to the question of whether or not Maglana can unilaterally dissolve the
partnership in the case at bar, the answer is in the affirmative.
Hence, as there are only two parties when Maglana notified Rojas that he
dissolved the partnership, it is in effect a notice of withdrawal.
Under Article 1830, par. 2 of the Civil Code, even if there is a specified
term, one partner can cause its dissolution by expressly withdrawing even
before the expiration of the period, with or without justifiable cause. Of
course, if the cause is not justified or no cause was given, the withdrawing
partner is liable for damages but in no case can he be compelled to remain
in the firm. With his withdrawal, the number of members is decreased,
hence, the dissolution. And in whatever way he may view the situation, the
conclusion is inevitable that Rojas and Maglana shall be guided in the
liquidation of the partnership by the provisions of its duly registered
Articles of Co-Partnership; that is, all profits and losses of the partnership
shall be divided "share and share alike" between the partners.
But an accounting must first be made and which in fact was ordered by the
trial court and accomplished by the commissioners appointed for the
purpose.
46
In the year 1903, Balbino Dequilla, the herein defendant, and Perpetua
Bearneza formed a partnership for the purpose of exploiting a fish pond
situated in the barrio of Talisay, municipality of Barotac Nuevo, Province of
Iloilo, Perpetua obligating herself to contribute to the payment of the
expenses of the business, which obligation she made good, and both
agreeing to divide the profits between themselves, which they had been
doing until the death of the said Perpetua in the year 1912.
The deceased left a will in one of the clauses of which she appointed
Domingo Bearnez, the herein plaintiff, as her heir to succeed to all her
rights and interests in the fish pond in question.
Demand having been made upon Balbino Dequilla by Domingo Bearneza
for the delivery of the part of the fish pond belonging to his decedent,
Perpetua, and delivery having been refused, Domingo Bearneza brought
this action to recover said part of the fish pond belonging to his decedent,
Perpetua, and delivery having been refused, Domingo Bearneza brought
this action recover said part of the fish pond and one-half of the profits
received by the defendant from the fish pond from the year 1913 to 1919,
as damages (the amended complaint was filed on April 12, 1920),
amounting, according to plaintiff, to the sum of thirteen thousand one
hundred pesos (13,100).
In his answer, the defendant denies generally and specifically the
allegations of the complaint, and alleges, as special defense, that "the
formation of the supposed partnership between the plaintiff and the
defendant for the exploitation of the aforesaid fish pond was not carried
into effect, on account of the plaintiff having refused to defray the
expenses of reconstruction and exploitation of said fish pond." As another
special defense, the defendant alleges "that in the event that the court
should hold the plaintiff to be entitled to the undivided one-half of the fish
pond, claimed in the complaint, the plaintiff's action has prescribed, the
time for bringing the same having elapsed."
DOMINGO
BEARNEZA, plaintiff-appelle,
vs.
BALBINO DEQUILLA, defendant-appellant.
C.
Lozano
and
Cecilio
I.
Lim
Montinola, Montinola & Hontiveros for appellee.
for
appellant.
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
47
Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Avancea, Villamor, Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.
48
EUGENIA
LICHAUCO,
ET
vs.
FAUSTINO LICHAUCO, defendant-appellant.
AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
Haussermann,
Cohn
and
Fisher
Gibbs, McDonough and Blanco for defendant.
for
plaintiffs.
CARSON, J.:
This action was brought by two of the partners of an enterprise of which
the defendant was manager (gestor), to secure an accounting of its affairs,
and the payment to the plaintiffs of their respective shares of capital and
profits.
The defendant admitted the allegations of the complaint as to the
organization of the enterprise and the participation of the plaintiffs therein,
but he contended that the plaintiffs could not maintain this action under
the terms of the written contract by virtue of which the enterprise was
organized. This contention having been overruled, an account of the affairs
of the enterprise was submitted, and the parties having been given an
opportunity to offer evidence for and against certain dispute items of the
account, judgment was rendered for the balance shown to be due the
plaintiffs, after allowing some of these disputed items and disallowing the
rest. To this judgment, both plaintiffs and defendant excepted, and the
record is now before us on their respective bills of exceptions.
In October, 1901, a notarial instrument was executed in Manila, by the
terms of which a partnership was duly organized for the purpose of
carrying on a rice-cleaning business at Dagupan, and for the purchase and
sale of "palay" and rice. The articles of association, which were not
recorded in the mercantile registry, contain, among others, the following
provisions:
2. The association will be named F. Lichauco Hermanos and will be
domiciled in the center of its operations, that is, in the pueblo of
Dagupan, Province of Pangasinan.
3. The association cannot be dissolved except by the consent and
agreement of two-thirds of its partners and in the event of the
death of any of the latter, the heirs of the deceased, if they be
minors or otherwise incapacitated, shall be represented in the
association by their legal representatives or if two-thirds of the
surviving partners agree thereto, the participation of the deceased
partner may be liquidated.
49
amount by the trial judge as due by him on account of the venture was
P29,549.99. The defendant explained that the account rendered to counsel
for the plaintiffs showing a balance of P634.64 was mailed by one of his
employees without his knowledge, and that it was a stupid blunder which
he greatly regretted; and it would seem that his statement as to the
bankruptcy of the enterprise were not intended to be understood as an
assertion that there was no balance due the partners, but merely that the
enterprise had not paid, and that the losses of operation had exceeded the
profits.
Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt, we are inclined to accept
these explanations of these incidents, as it is hardly possible that he could
have hoped to escape indefinitely the necessity of accounting for his
management of the enterprise, and thus permanently retain in his own
possession the substantial balance due to his associates. But it is to be
observed that, viewed for many standpoint, these statements, made and
rendered by the defendant as to the affairs of the association, taken
together with the other evidence in the record, leave no room for doubt
that from the time he concluded the operations of the business in 1904
until the date of the institution of this action in 1912 he made no attempt
to account to his associates or to turn over to them the amount due them
on a proper accounting.
The assignments of error made by counsel for the defendant, as appellant,
are as follows:
Error No. 1. The trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs and against the defendant for any sum, without
first decreeing a dissolution of the association and final liquidation
of its assets in accordance with paragraph 10 of the articles of
association, and because such judgment is not within the issues
joined.
Error No. 2. The trial court erred in charging the defendant with
P5,500, the price of certain boilers and machinery sold to one
Marciano Rivera by Crisanto Lichauco, which amount never came
into the possession of defendant.
Error No. 3. The trial court erred in disallowing the credit of
P60.36, taken by defendant for that amount expended in an
attempt to make good the sale and delivery to Marciano Rivera of
the boilers and machinery mentioned in the second assignment of
error.
Error No. 4. The court erred in charging the defendant with the
P1,820, covered by stipulation of December 10, 1913, for the
50
reason that the defendant's liability under that stipulation can only
accrue on the final dissolution and liquidation of the association.
Error No. 5. The court erred in rendering judgment against the
defendant for the costs of the action.
The assignments of error made by refusing to condemn the defendant to
the payment of interest at the legal rate from May 30, 1904, to date of
payment.
Error No. 3. The court erred in refusing to allow the joint venture
account the sum of P17, 746, being the value of 3,736 cavanes of
rice at P4.75 per cavan, for which the defendant has wholly failed
to account.
Error No. 4. The court erred in declining to allow the joint
venture account the sum of P8,943.98 as interest upon said lastmentioned sum at the legal rate.
Error No. 5. The court erred in declining to allow the joint
venture account the sum of P564.34, as interest at the legal rate
upon the sum of P5,500, for which the defendant has failed and
refused to account.
Error No. 6. The court erred in declining to credit the joint
venture account with the sum of P2,498.46 as the amount due said
account from Mariano Nable Jose, together with interest thereon at
the legal rate, amounting to P1,259.22.
We shall first examine the contentions of counsel for the defendant in
support of his principal assignment of error, as a ruling in this regard is
necessary to the proper disposition of all the other assignments of error by
both plaintiffs and defendant.
51
(2) When the thing is lost, or the business for which it was
constituted ends.
(3) By the natural death, civil interdiction, or insolvency of any of
the partners, and in the case provided for in article 1699.
(4) By the will of any of the partners, subject to the provisions of
articles 1705 and 1707.
Partnerships, to which article 1670 refers, are excepted from the
provisions of Nos. 3 and 4 of this article, in the cases in which they
should exist, according to the Code of Commerce.
1670. Civil partnerships, on account of the objects for which they
are destined, may adopt all the forms accepted by the Code of
Commerce. In this case, the provisions of the same shall be
applicable, in so far as they are not in conflict with those of the
present Code.
Articles 221 and 222 of the Code of Commerce are as follows:
221. Associations of any kind whatsoever shall be completely
dissolved for the following reasons:
(1) The termination of the period fixed in the articles of association
of the conclusion of the enterprise which constitutes its purpose.
(2) The entire loss of the capital.
(3) The failure of the association.
222. General and limited copartnerships shall furthermore be
totally dissolved for the following reasons:
(1) The death of one of the general partners if the articles of
copartnership do not contain an express agreement that the heirs
of deceased partner are to continue in the copartnership, or an
agreement to the effect that said copartnership will continue
between the surviving partners.
(2) The insanity of a managing partner or any other cause which
renders him incapable of administering his property.
(3) The failure of any of the general partners.
52
The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint and the defendant admitted in his
answer that the contract was one of a "sociedad de cuentas en
participacion" (joint account partnership) of which the defendant
was gestor (manager). In his brief on appeal, however, counsel for
defendant intimates that under article 241 of the Commercial Code, the
adoption in the articles of partnership of a firm name deprived the parties
of the rights and privileges secured to those interested in cuentas en
participacion under the provisions of the Commercial Code.
But whatever effect the inclusion or omission of a firm name in the articles
of partnership may have had as to third persons dealing with the
partnership, we are of opinion that as between the associates themselves,
their mutual rights, duties and obligations may properly be determined
upon the authority of article 1670 of the Civil Code by the provisions of the
Commercial Code touching partnerships, the form of which in all other
respects, the partners have adopted in their articles of partnership.
The duty of the defendant to liquidate the affairs of the enterprise and to
account to his associates promptly upon the dissolution of the association
in the year 1904 is expressly prescribed in the Commercial Code, whether
we regard the association, so far as it affects the mutual rights and
obligations of the partners, as clothed with the forms of a "sociedad de
cuentas en participacion" (joint account partnership) or a "sociedad en
comindata."
Article 243 of the Code of Commerce prescribes with reference to "cuentas
en participacion" (joint accounts) that:
243. The liquidation shall be effected by the manager, and after
the transactions have been concluded he shall render a proper
account of its results.
Articles 229 and 230 of the same Code are as follows:
229. In general or limited copartnerships, should there be no
opposition on the part of any of the partners, the persons who
managed the common funds shall continue in charge of the
liquidation; but should all the partners not agree thereto a general
meeting shall be called without delay, and the decision adopted at
53
regard, as they were submitted to him and as they are disclosed by the
record brought here on appeal.
We find no merit in defendant's assignment of error numbered 3.
54