Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
BATUNGBAKAL
HELD: Yes, even though it was not reduced to writing, for a partnership can be
instituted in any form. The fact that it was registered as a sole proprietorship is of
no moment for such registration was only for the companys trade name.
Anay was not even an employee because when they ventured into the agreement,
they explicitly agreed to profit sharing this is even though Anay was receiving
commissions because this is only incidental to her efforts as a head marketer.
The Supreme Court also noted that a partner who is excluded wrongfully from a
partnership is an innocent partner. Hence, the guilty partner must give him his due
upon the dissolution of the partnership as well as damages or share in the profits
realized from the appropriation of the partnership business and goodwill. An
innocent partner thus possesses pecuniary interest in every existing contract that
was incomplete and in the trade name of the co-partnership and assets at the time
he was wrongfully expelled.
An unjustified dissolution by a partner can subject him to action for damages
because by the mutual agency that arises in a partnership, the doctrine of delectus
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
personae allows the partners to have the power, although not necessarily the right
to dissolve the partnership.
Tocaos unilateral exclusion of Anay from the partnership is shown by her memo to
the Cubao office plainly stating that Anay was, as of October 9, 1987, no longer the
vice-president for sales of Geminesse Enterprise. By that memo, petitioner Tocao
affected her own withdrawal from the partnership and considered herself as having
ceased to be associated with the partnership in the carrying on of the business.
Nevertheless, the partnership was not terminated thereby; it continues until the
winding up of the business.
2. HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE vs.CA 341 SCRA 740, G.R. No. 126881, October
3, 2000
FACTS: After the second World War, Tan EngKee and Tan Eng Lay, pooling their
resources and industry together, entered into a partnership engaged in the business
of selling lumber and hardware and construction supplies. They named their
enterprise "Benguet Lumber" which they jointly managed until Tan EngKee's death.
Petitioners herein averred that the business prospered due to the hard work and
thrift of the alleged partners. However, they claimed that in 1981, Tan Eng Lay and
his children caused the conversion of the partnership "Benguet Lumber" into a
corporation called "Benguet Lumber Company." The incorporation was purportedly a
ruse to deprive Tan EngKee and his heirs of their rightful participation in the profits
of the business. Petitioners prayed for accounting of the partnership assets, and the
dissolution, winding up and liquidation thereof, and the equal division of the net
assets of Benguet Lumber. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring that
Benguet Lumber is a joint venture which is akin to a particular partnership. The
Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision reversing the judgment of the trial
court.
ISSUE: Whether the deceased Tan EngKee and Tan Eng Lay are joint adventurers
and/or partners in a business venture and/or particular partnership called Benguet
Lumber and as such should share in the profits and/or losses of the business
venture or particular partnership
RULING: There was no partnership whatsoever. Except for a firm name, there was
no firm account, no firm letterheads submitted as evidence, no certificate of
partnership, no agreement as to profits and losses, and no time fixed for the
duration of the partnership. There was even no attempt to submit an accounting
corresponding to the period after the war until Kee's death in 1984. It had no
business book, no written account nor any memorandum for that matter and no
license mentioning the existence of a partnership. Also, the trial court determined
that Tan EngKee and Tan Eng Lay had entered into a joint venture, which it said is
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
3. LORENZO OA V CIR
Facts: Julia Buales died leaving as heirs her surviving spouse, Lorenzo Oa and her
five children. A civil case was instituted for the settlement of her state, in which Oa
was appointed administrator and later on the guardian of the three heirs who were
still minors when the project for partition was approved. This shows that the heirs
have undivided interest in 10 parcels of land, 6 houses and money from the War
Damage Commission.
Although the project of partition was approved by the Court, no attempt was made
to divide the properties and they remained under the management of Oa who used
said properties in business by leasing or selling them and investing the income
derived therefrom and the proceeds from the sales thereof in real properties and
securities. As a result, petitioners properties and investments gradually increased.
Petitioners returned for income tax purposes their shares in the net income but they
did not actually receive their shares because this left with Oa who invested them.
Based on these facts, CIR decided that petitioners formed an unregistered
partnership and therefore, subject to the corporate income tax, particularly for
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
years 1955 and 1956. Petitioners asked for reconsideration, which was denied
hence this petition for review from CTAs decision.
Issue:
W/N there was a co-ownership or an unregistered partnership
W/N the petitioners are liable for the deficiency corporate income tax
Held: Unregistered partnership. The Tax Court found that instead of actually
distributing the estate of the deceased among themselves pursuant to the project of
partition, the heirs allowed their properties to remain under the management of
Oa and let him use their shares as part of the common fund for their ventures,
even as they paid corresponding income taxes on their respective shares.
Yes. For tax purposes, the co-ownership of inherited properties is automatically
converted into an unregistered partnership the moment the said common properties
and/or the incomes derived therefrom are used as a common fund with intent to
produce profits for the heirs in proportion to their respective shares in the
inheritance as determined in a project partition either duly executed in an
extrajudicial settlement or approved by the court in the corresponding testate or
intestate proceeding. The reason is simple. From the moment of such partition, the
heirs are entitled already to their respective definite shares of the estate and the
incomes thereof, for each of them to manage and dispose of as exclusively his own
without the intervention of the other heirs, and, accordingly, he becomes liable
individually for all taxes in connection therewith. If after such partition, he allows his
share to be held in common with his co-heirs under a single management to be
used with the intent of making profit thereby in proportion to his share, there can be
no doubt that, even if no document or instrument were executed, for the purpose,
for tax purposes, at least, an unregistered partnership is formed.
For purposes of the tax on corporations, our National Internal Revenue Code
includes these partnerships
The term partnership includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other
unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial
operation, or venture is carried on (8 Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation, p.
562 Note 63; emphasis ours.)
with the exception only of duly registered general copartnerships within the
purview of the term corporation. It is, therefore, clear to our mind that petitioners
herein constitute a partnership, insofar as said Code is concerned, and are subject
to the income tax for corporations. Judgment affirmed.
4. Gatchalian vs. Collector of Internal Revenue [G.R. No. L-45425, April 29,
1939]
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
Facts: Plaintiffs purchased, in the ordinary course of business, from one of the duly
authorized agents of the National Charity Sweepstakes Office one ticket for the sum
of two pesos (P2), said ticket was registered in the name of Jose Gatchalian and
Company. The ticket won one of the third-prizes in the amount of P50,000.
Jose Gatchalian was required to file the corresponding income tax return covering
the prize won. Defendant-Collector made an assessment against Jose Gatchalian
and Co. requesting the payment of the sum of P1,499.94 to the deputy provincial
treasurer of Pulilan, Bulacan. Plaintiffs, however through counsel made a request for
exemption. It was denied.
Plaintiffs failed to pay the amount due, hence a warrant of distraint and levy was
issued. Plaintiffs paid under protest a part of the tax and penalties to avoid the
effects of the warrant. A request that the balance be paid by plaintiffs in
installments was made. This was granted on the condition that a bond be filed.
Plaintiffs failed in their installment payments. Hence a request for execution of the
warrant of distraint and levy was made. Plaintiffs paid under protest to avoid the
execution.
A claim for refund was made by the plaintiffs, which was dismissed, hence the
appeal.
Issue: Whether the plaintiffs formed a partnership hence liable for income tax.
Held: Yes. According to the stipulation facts the plaintiffs organized a partnership of
a civil nature because each of them put up money to buy a sweepstakes ticket for
the sole purpose of dividing equally the prize which they may win, as they did in
fact in the amount of P50,000. The partnership was not only formed, but upon the
organization thereof and the winning of the prize, Jose Gatchalian personally
appeared in the office of the Philippines Charity Sweepstakes, in his capacity as co-
partner, as such collection the prize, the office issued the check for P50,000 in favor
of Jose Gatchalian and company, and the said partner, in the same capacity,
collected the said check. All these circumstances repel the idea that the plaintiffs
organized and formed a community of property only.
5. LIWANAG v. CA
FACTS: Petitioner Carmen Liwanag and a certain Thelma Tabligan went to the house
of complainant Isidora Rosales (Rosales) and asked her to join them in the business
of buying and selling cigarettes. Convinced of the feasibility of the venture, Rosales
readily agreed. Under their agreement, Rosales would give the money needed to
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
buy the cigarettes while Liwanag and Tabligan would act as her agents, with a
corresponding 40% commission to her if the goods are sold; otherwise the money
would be returned to Rosales. Consequently, Rosales gave several cash advances to
Liwanag and Tabligan amounting to P633,650.00
Alarmed that Liwanag was no longer visiting her regarding their business and
believing that the amounts she advanced were being misappropriated, Rosales filed
a case of estafa against Liwanag.
Liwanag advances the theory that the intention of the parties was to enter into a
contract of partnership, wherein Rosales would contribute the funds while she would
buy and sell the cigarettes, and later divide the profits between them. She also
argues that the transaction can also be interpreted as a simple loan, with Rosales
lending to her the amount stated on an installment basis. RTC found Liwanag
guilty for the crime of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts
decision
ISSUE: Whether Liwanag can be acquitted from the crime of estafa because she and
Rosales formed a partnership
HELD:
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
On December 17, 1963 herein respondent filed suit against the three other
partners, 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 to let her examine
the partnership books or to give her information regarding the partnership affairs or
to pay her any share in the dividends declared by the partnership
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 by way 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.
ISSUE: Whether Abad Santos is entitled to see the partnership books because she is
an industrial partner in the partnership
The Supreme Court ruled that according to ART. 1299. Any partner shall have the
right to a formal account as to partnership affairs:
In the case at hand, the company is estopped from denying Abad Santos as an
industrial partner because it has been 8 years and the company never corrected
their agreement in order to show their true intentions. The company never bothered
to correct those up until Abad Santos filed a complaint.
FACTS: Ishwar Jethmal Ramnani and his wife Sonya had their main business based
in New York. Ishwar received US $150,000.00 from his father-in-law in Switzerland.
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
In 1970 Ishwar asked Choithram to account for the income and expenses relative to
these properties during the period 1967 to 1970. Choithram failed and refused to
render such accounting which prompted Ishwar to revoke the general power of
attorney. Choithram and Ortigas Ltd. were duly notified by notice in writing of such
revocation. It was also registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
published in The Manila Times. Nevertheless, Choithram as such attorney-in-fact of
Ishwar, transferred all rights and interests of Ishwar spouses in favor of Nirmla
Ramnani, the wife of Choitrams son, Moti. Ortigas also executed the corresponding
deeds of sale in favor of Nirmla and the TCT ISSUEd in her favour. Thus, spouses
Ishwar filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Choithram and
spouses Nirmla and Moti (Choithram et al.) and Ortigas Ltd. for reconveyance of
said properties or payment of its value and damages.
Held: The Court held that there was a partnership formed. Even without a written
agreement, the scenario is clear. Spouses Ishwar supplied the capital of
$150,000.00 for the business. They entrusted the money to Choithram to invest in a
profitable business venture in the Philippines. For this purpose they appointed
Choithram as their attorney-in-fact. We have a situation where two brothers
engaged in a business venture. One furnished the capital, the other contributed his
industry and talent. Justice and equity dictate that the two share equally the fruit of
their joint investment and efforts.
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
mercantile registrar in the Province of Iloilo. Ping, in the articles of partnership, was
assigned as the general manager. However, in 1917, he executed a special power of
attorney in favor of Lam to act in his behalf as the manager of the firm.
Subsequently, Lam obtained a loan from PNB the loan was under the firms name.
In the same year, Ping died in China. From 1918 to 1920, the firm, via GM Lam,
incurred other loans from PNB. The loans were not objected by any of the partners.
Later, PNB sued the firm for non-payment. Lo, in his defense, argued that he cannot
be liable as a partner because the partnership, according to him, is void; that it is
void because the firms name did not comply with the requirement of the Code of
Commerce that a firm name should contain the names of all of the partners, of
several of them, or only one of them. Lo also argued that the acts of Lam after the
death of Ping is not binding upon the other partners because the special power of
attorney shall have already ceased.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lo is correct in both arguments.
HELD: No. The anomalous adoption of the firm name above noted does not affect
the liability of the general partners to third parties under Article 127 of the Code of
Commerce. The object of the Code of Commerce in requiring a general partnership
to transact business under the name of all its members, of several of them, or of
one only, is to protect the public from imposition and fraud; it is for the protection of
the creditors rather than of the partners themselves. It is unenforceable as between
the partners and at the instance of the violating party, but not in the sense of
depriving innocent parties of their rights who may have dealt with the offenders in
ignorance of the latter having violated the law; and that contracts entered into by a
partnership firm defectively organized are valid when voluntarily executed by the
parties, and the only question is whether or not they complied with the agreement.
Therefore, Lo cannot invoke in his defense the anomaly in the firm name which they
themselves adopted. Lo was not able to prove his second argument. But even
assuming arguendo, his second contention does not deserve merit because (a) Lam,
in acting as a GM, is also a partner and his actions were never objected to by the
partners, and (b) it also appeared from the evidence that Lo, Lam and the other
partners authorized some of the loans.
FACTS: In 1905, Francisco Muoz, Emilio Muoz, and Rafael Naval formed an
ordinary general mercantile partnership in accordance with the Code of Commerce.
They named the partnership Francisco Muoz & Sons. Francisco was the capitalist
partner while the other two were industrial partners. In the articles of partnership, it
was agreed upon by the three that for profits, Francisco shall have a 3/4th share
while the other two would have 1/8th each. For losses, only Francisco shall bear it.
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
Later, the partnership was sued by La Compaia Martitama for collection of sum of
money amounting to P26,828.30. The partnership lost the case and was ordered to
make said payment; that in case the partnership cant pay the debt, all the partners
should be liable for it.
The ruling is in accordance with Article 127 of the Code of Commerce which states:
All the members of the general copartnership, be they or be they not managing
partners of the same, are liable personally and in solidum with all their property for
the results of the transactions made in the name and for the account of the
partnership, under the signature of the latter, and by a person authorized to make
use thereof. (emphasis supplied)
Francisco now argues that the industrial partners should NOT be liable pursuant to
Article 141 of the Code of Commerce which states:
Losses shall be charged in the same proportion among the partners who have
contributed capital, without including those who have not, unless by special
agreement the latter have been constituted as participants therein. (emphasis
supplied)
ISSUE: Whether or not the industrial partners are liable to third parties like La
Compaia Martitama.
HELD: Yes. The controlling law is Article 127. There is no injustice in imposing this
liability upon the industrial partners. They have a voice in the management of the
business, if no manager has been named in the articles; they share in the profits
and as to third persons it is no more than right that they should share in the
obligations. It is admitted that if in this case there had been a capitalist partner who
had contributed only P100 he would be liable for this entire debt of P26,000.
Article 141 relates exclusively to the settlement of the partnership affairs among
the partners themselves and has nothing to do with the liability of the partners to
third persons; that each one of the industrial partners is liable to third persons for
the debts of the firm; that if he has paid such debts out of his private property
during the life of the partnership, when its affairs are settled he is entitled to credit
for the amount so paid, and if it results that there is not enough property in the
partnership to pay him, then the capitalist partners must pay him.
In relation to this, the Supreme Court noted that partnerships under the Civil Code
provides for a scenario where all partners are industrial partners (like when it is a
partnership for the exercise of a profession). In such case, if it is permitted that
industrial partners are not liable to third persons then such third persons would get
practically nothing from such partnerships if the latter is indebted.
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
Issue: Whether or not the private respondents are estopped to avoid the
aforementioned mortgage.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent partnership was
inescapably chargeable with knowledge of the mortgage executed by all the
partners thereof, its silence and failure to impugn said mortgage within a
reasonable time, let alone a space of more than 17 years, brought into play the
doctrine of estoppel to preclude any attempt to avoid the mortgage as allegedly
unauthorized. Equally or even more preclusive of the respondent partnerships
claim to the mortgaged property is the last paragraph of Art. 1819 of the Civil Code,
which contemplates a situation similar to the case at bar. It states that where the
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
title to real property is in the names of all the partners, a conveyance executed by
the entire partners pass all their rights in such property. Consequently, those
members' acts, declarations and omissions cannot be deemed to be simply the
individual acts of said members, but in fact and in law, those of the partnership.
Finally, the Supreme Court emphasizes that the right of the private respondents to
assert the existence of the partnership could have been stressed at the time they
instituted their first action, considering that the actions involved property
supposedly belonging to it, and therefore, the partnership was the real party in
interest. What was done by them was to split their cause of action in violation of the
well-known rule that only one suit may be instituted for a single cause of action.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner validly foreclosed the real estate mortgage on
Alcedo's property despite notice of Alcedo's revocation of the Special Power of
Attorney
HELD: No. The Court held that under the doctrine of promissory estoppels, the act
and assurance given by the petitioner to Alcedo "that we shall exclude the
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
FACTS: Petitioner entered into an agreement with Baguio Gold Mining Corporation
for the former to manage the latters mining claim know as the Sto. Mine. The
parties agreement was denominated as Power of Attorney. The mine suffered
continuing losses over the years, which resulted in petitioners withdrawal as
manager of the mine. The parties executed a Compromise Dation in Payment.
Petitioner deducted said amount from its gross income in its annual tax income
return as loss on the settlement of receivables from Baguio Gold against reserves
and allowances. BIR disallowed the amount as deduction for bad debt. Petitioner
claims that it entered a contract of agency evidenced by the power of attorney
executed by them and the advances made by petitioners is in the nature of a loan
and thus can be deducted from its gross income.
HELD: No. The Court held that the Power of Attorney is the instrument material in
determining the true nature of the business relationship between petitioner and
Baguio. The said Power of Attorney reveals that a partnership was indeed intended
by the parties and establish a common fund for the purpose. While a corporation
like the petitioner cannot generally enter into a contract of partnership unless
REAMICO
PARTNERSHIP CASES ATTY. BATUNGBAKAL
authorized by law or its charter, it has been held that it may enter into a joint
venture, which is akin to a particular partnership. They also had a joint interest in
the profits of the business as shown by the 50-50 sharing of income of the mine.
Furthermore, in an agency coupled with interest, it is the agency that cannot be
revoked or withdrawn by the principal due to an interest of a third party that
depends upon it or the mutual interest of both principal and agent. In this case the
non-revocation or non-withdrawal under the power of attorney applies to the
advances made by the petitioner who is the agent and not the principal under the
contract. Thus, it cannot be inferred from the stipulation that it is an agency
REAMICO