Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > February 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 38765 February 12, 1934 - LUIS MA. ROBLES v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AL.

059 Phil 482:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 38765. February 12, 1934.]

LUIS MA. ROBLES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ANTONIA CECILIO VIUDA DE PARDO, MANUEL PARDO, ANTONIA L. PARDO, and CONCEPCION ROBLES DE COSTOSA, this latter represented by her attorney in fact, Antonio Carrascoso, Defendants-Appellants.

J. Ezequiel Espinas for Appellants.

Ramirez & Ortigas for appellant-administrator F. Romero.

Manly & Reyes and L. D. Lockwood for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PARTNERSHIP; RIGHT OF WITHDRAWING PARTNER; RIGHT OF ACTION. — The plaintiff’s share or interest in the partnership having been liquidated and the method of payment having been agreed upon, as set forth in Exhibit B, his rights of action accrued as provided for in the contract. The value of the share or interest of the withdrawing partner was not contingent upon whether or not a loan could be secured by the partnership.

2. ID.; ID.; LIABILITY FOR DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTNERSHIP. — A withdrawing partner is not liable for debts and obligations of the partnership and has only the position of a creditor.

3. PARTIES TO ACTION; RIGHT TO NOTICE. — The present contention of some of the defendants that they at all times had a right to have served on them individually a copy of all motions and decisions of the trial court, is entirely without foundation. They received summons and they had a right to appear in court if they saw fit. They did appear in court in a possibly irregular way, but they cannot take advantage of their own action to defeat or thwart the legal rights of Plaintiff-Appellee.


D E C I S I O N


HULL, J.:


Plaintiff for many years was a partner of the commercial firm of Pardo y Robles Hermanos. In the articles of co-partnership was a provision that when one of the partners desired to withdraw from the partnership and the remaining partners desired to continue the partnership, the withdrawing partner must give notice in writing, and the firm would have three years in which to pay his share or interest therein.

In compliance with this provision, on October 1, 1927, the herein plaintiff-appellee gave notice to the partnership, as well as to all the individual members thereof, of his desire to separate therefrom.

On January 28, 1930, plaintiff’s share or interest in the firm was liquidated and found to be P80,000 and the method of payment was agreed upon as set forth in Exhibit B. Later, the form of payment was changed as shown by Exhibit E. Payments not having been made, this suit was duly brought, and after trial, judgment was given for plaintiff, and defendants bring this appeal.

It is claimed that the settlement of January 28, 1930, was not a final settlement but was contingent upon securing a loan. This is based upon the fact that the managing partner was authorized at the same meeting where the share of plaintiff was determined, to negotiate a loan if possible. But the value of plaintiff’s interest in the partnership was not contingent upon whether the loan was secured or not. The securing of the loan might have made it easier for the partnership to liquidate the share of the retiring partner, but his rights as of that date were not contingent upon the future action of the partnership. Nor would he have to wait three years after the settlement then made before he was entitled to payment, which would mean an amendment to the articles of incorporation that a partner could not enforce liquidation of his account for six years. His right of action accrued as provided for in the contract. Nor is Exhibit E invalid because one of the defendants signed it "Salvo mi opinion." Nor would such a statement relieve the signer from his responsibility, which had become fixed on January 28, 1930.

It is also contended on the part of defendants that plaintiff was not entitled to recover until all the debts and obligations of the partnership had been paid off. The remaining partners have little right to advance such a contention. If there was a withdrawal with the intent to defraud any existing creditors, another question would be presented, but no such allegation is here made. Certainly, a withdrawing partner is not liable for debts and obligations of the partnership after he has ceased to be a member of the partnership and has only the position of a creditor.

Certain of the defendants claim that the proceedings must be set aside as Manuel Pardo, now deceased, represented not only himself and the company of which he was general manager, but other defendants. It now appears that Manuel Pardo was authorized to practice in Spain but had never been admitted to practice in this country. Of course he had a right to represent himself and probably his right to represent the partnership while he was managing director would not be questioned.

As to the other defendants who at this late date are questioning his right to represent them in court it must be noted that they were all duly served, that their interest was identical, that they were related one to the other and virtually lived together, and it is inconceivable that Manuel Pardo represented them without their knowledge and consent. If he did not, they were in such flagrant default that they have no right to complain of the proceedings. Had the facts been known, plaintiff or the court could have objected to Manuel Pardo’s representing the other defendants, although it is very probable under the circumstances of the entire case that the court upon motion might have approved of his appearance in this one proceeding as an act of professional courtesy to a member of the bar of a friendly country.

The present contention of some of the defendants that they at all times had a right to have served on them individually a copy of all motions and decisions of the trial court, is entirely without foundation. They received summons and they had a right to appear in court if they saw fit. They did appear in court in a possibly irregular way, but they cannot take advantage of their own action to defeat or thwart the legal rights of Plaintiff-Appellee.

The judgment appeared from is therefore affirmed with costs against appellants. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Goddard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 39590 February 6, 1934 - JESUS AZCONA v. ALBERTA L. REYES, ET AL.

    059 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 39607 February 6, 1934 - ENCARNACION MAGALONA, ET AL. v. JUAN PESAYCO

    059 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 39933 February 6, 1934 - RODOLFO TORRELA v. JOSE PEREZ MINGUEZ, ET AL.

    059 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41072 February 7, 1934 - PO SUN TUN v. EMILIO MAPA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 37197 February 8, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARCELO TURNO

    059 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 39696 February 8, 1934 - MARIA GUERRERO, ET AL. v. JOSE DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 39889 February 8, 1934 - SEINOSUKE OGURA v. SOTERO CHUA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 39425 February 10, 1934 - SILVERIO F. GARCIA v. JOSE A. DE ARAMBURO and ELVIRA VEGUILLAS DE ARAMBURO

    059 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 38765 February 12, 1934 - LUIS MA. ROBLES v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AL.

    059 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 39802 February 12, 1934 - DOROTEA MENDOZA VIUDA DE BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. ANTONIA CECILIO VIUDA DE PARDO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 40233 February 14, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. JOSE ESTEVA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 40390 February 14, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE C. NAVALES

    059 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 40849 February 14, 1934 - PERFECTO CORTIGUERA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    059 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 40266 February 15, 1934 - PROVINCIA DEL SANTISIMO NOMBRE DE JESUS v. C. H. CONRAD

    059 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 40203 February 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SANTIAGO GIMENA

    059 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 37866 February 17, 1934 - NICANOR JACINTO v. JUANA FAJARDO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 40620 February 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    059 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 40684 February 17, 1934 - CHUA GO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    059 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 39881 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO DE LA CRUZ

    059 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 39882 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO DE LA CRUZ

    059 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 40602 February 20, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GREGORIO BERIO

    059 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 39177 February 21, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TAN DIONG, ET AL.

    059 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 40008 February 21, 1934 - PAULINO ACOSTA v. NICOLAS LLACUNA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 38612 February 23, 1934 - CIRIACO LIZADA v. OMANAN, ET AL.

    059 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 41061 February 23, 1934 - MOISES S. AMPIL v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    059 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 41202 February 23, 1934 - LUCIO ARIZ v. CFI OF MANILA

    059 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 39427 February 24, 1934 - TIRSO GARCIA v. LIM CHU SING

    059 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 39461 February 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CORAZON DE CORTEZ

    059 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 39478 February 24, 1934 - PROCESO ECHARRI, ET AL. v. JUAN BELEN VELASCO, ET AL.

    059 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 39634 February 27, 1934 - ROSARIO GUANZON v. GRACIANO RIVERA

    059 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 40098 February 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLAND v. FELIX AZCONA, ET AL.

    059 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 40705 February 28, 1934 - TOLEDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    059 Phil 586