Ernest Levanza Soncuya vs.

De Luna Topic: Dissolution and Winding Up Doctrine: A partner to be able to claim from another partner who manages the general co-partnership, damages allegedly suffered by him by reason of the fraudulent administration of the latter, a previous liquidation of said partnership is necessary Facts: 1. Soncuya filed with the CFI-Manila and amended complaint against Carmen de Luna in her own name and as co-administratrix of the intestate estate of Librada Avelino in which upon the facts therein alleged, he prayed that defendant be sentenced to pay him the sum of 700432php as damages and costs. 2. To the aforesaid amended complaint, De Luna interposed a demurrer based on the following grounds: a. The complaint does not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action b. Complaint is ambiguous, unintelligible and vague 3. Court found that it as well founded and sustained it ordering Soncuya to amend his complaint within 10 days from receipt of notice of the order 4. Soncuya manifested that he would prefer not to amend his amended complaint. 5. De Lunas attorney filed a motion praying that the amended complaint be dismissed with cost against the plaintiff. 6. CFI-Manila granted the motion and ordered the dismissal of the amended complaint with costs against plaintiff. 7. Soncuya appealed and assigned 20 alleged errors committed by the LC 8. In the amended complaint, it is prayed that Carmen De Luna be sentenced to pay plaintiff damages in the sum of 700432 as a result of the administration, said to be fraudulent of the partnership, Centro Escolar de Senoritas, of which Soncuya, and the deceased Avelino were members. Issue: Whether Soncuya can collect damages Held: No Ratio: 1. It is first necessary that a liquidation of the business thereof be made to the end that the profits and losses may be known and the causes of the latter and the responsibility of the defendant as well as the damages of each partner may have suffered may be determined. 2. It is not alleged in the complaint that such liquidation has been effected nor is it prayed that it be made. 3. Consequently, there is no reason or cause for plaintiff to institute the action for damages which he claims from the managing partner, De Luna. 4. Court did not discuss anymore other issues.

5. In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that for a partner to be able to claim from another partner who manages the general co-partnership, damages allegedly suffered by him by reason of the fraudulent administration of the latter, a previous liquidation of said partnership is necessary.