Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4th Part PAT
4th Part PAT
G.R. No. 153788 November 27, 2009 THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE & 33/100 PESOS
(P66,333.33) which were supposedly in payment of the
ROGER V. NAVARRO, Petitioner, agreed rentals; that when the fifth and sixth checks, i.e.
vs. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS – CAGAYAN DE ORO
HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch BRANCH CHECKS NOS. 017112 and 017113, respectively
37, Cagayan de Oro City, and KAREN T. GO, doing dated January 8, 1998 and February 8, 1998, were
business under the name KARGO presented for payment and/or credit, the same were
ENTERPRISES, Respondents. dishonored and/or returned by the drawee bank for the
common reason that the current deposit account against
DECISION which the said checks were issued did not have sufficient
funds to cover the amounts thereof; that the total amount
BRION, J.:
of the two (2) checks, i.e. the sum of ONE HUNDRED
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 that seeks to set THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX & 66/100
aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated October PESOS (P132,666.66) therefore represents the principal
16, 2001 and Resolution3 dated May 29, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP. liability of defendant ROGER NAVARRO unto plaintiff on the
No. 64701. These CA rulings affirmed the July 26, basis of the provisions of the above LEASE AGREEMENT
20004 and March 7, 20015 orders of the Regional Trial WITH RIGHT TO PURCHASE; that demands, written and
Court (RTC), Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, oral, were made of defendant ROGER NAVARRO to pay the
denying petitioner Roger V. Navarro’s (Navarro) motion to amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND SIX
dismiss. HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX & 66/100 PESOS (P132,666.66), or to
return the subject motor vehicle as also provided for in the
BACKGROUND FACTS LEASE AGREEMENT WITH RIGHT TO PURCHASE, but said
demands were, and still are, in vain to the great damage
On September 12, 1998, respondent Karen T. Go filed two and injury of herein plaintiff; xxx
complaints, docketed as Civil Case Nos. 98-599 (first
complaint)6 and 98-598 (second complaint),7 before the 4. That the aforedescribed motor vehicle has not been the
RTC for replevin and/or sum of money with damages subject of any tax assessment and/or fine pursuant to law,
against Navarro. In these complaints, Karen Go prayed that or seized under an execution or an attachment as against
the RTC issue writs of replevin for the seizure of two (2) herein plaintiff;
motor vehicles in Navarro’s possession.
xxx
The first complaint stated:
8. That plaintiff hereby respectfully applies for an order of
1. That plaintiff KAREN T. GO is a Filipino, of legal age, the Honorable Court for the immediate delivery of the
married to GLENN O. GO, a resident of Cagayan de Oro City above-described motor vehicle from defendants unto
and doing business under the trade name KARGO plaintiff pending the final determination of this case on the
ENTERPRISES, an entity duly registered and existing under merits and, for that purpose, there is attached hereto an
and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, affidavit duly executed and bond double the value of the
which has its business address at Bulua, Cagayan de Oro personal property subject matter hereof to answer for
City; that defendant ROGER NAVARRO is a Filipino, of legal damages and costs which defendants may suffer in the
age, a resident of 62 Dolores Street, Nazareth, Cagayan de event that the order for replevin prayed for may be found
Oro City, where he may be served with summons and other out to having not been properly issued.
processes of the Honorable Court; that defendant "JOHN
DOE" whose real name and address are at present unknown The second complaint contained essentially the same
to plaintiff is hereby joined as party defendant as he may allegations as the first complaint, except that the Lease
be the person in whose possession and custody the personal Agreement with Option to Purchase involved is dated
property subject matter of this suit may be found if the October 1, 1997 and the motor vehicle leased is described
same is not in the possession of defendant ROGER as follows:
NAVARRO;
Make/Type FUSO WITH MOUNTED CRANE
2. That KARGO ENTERPRISES is in the business of, among Serial No. FK416K-510528
others, buying and selling motor vehicles, including hauling Motor No. 6D14-423403
trucks and other heavy equipment;
The second complaint also alleged that Navarro delivered
3. That for the cause of action against defendant ROGER three post-dated checks, each for the amount
NAVARRO, it is hereby stated that on August 8, 1997, the ofP100,000.00, to Karen Go in payment of the agreed
said defendant leased [from] plaintiff a certain motor rentals; however, the third check was dishonored when
vehicle which is more particularly described as follows – presented for payment.8
Make/Type FUSO WITH MOUNTED CRANE On October 12, 19989 and October 14, 1998,10 the RTC
issued writs of replevin for both cases; as a result, the
Serial No. FK416K-51680 Sheriff seized the two vehicles and delivered them to the
Motor No. 6D15-338735 possession of Karen Go.
Plate No. GHK-378
In his Answers, Navarro alleged as a special affirmative
as evidenced by a LEASE AGREEMENT WITH OPTION TO defense that the two complaints stated no cause of action,
PURCHASE entered into by and between KARGO since Karen Go was not a party to the Lease Agreements
ENTERPRISES, then represented by its Manager, the with Option to Purchase (collectively, the lease
aforementioned GLENN O. GO, and defendant ROGER agreements) – the actionable documents on which the
NAVARRO xxx; that in accordance with the provisions of the complaints were based.
above LEASE AGREEMENT WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE,
defendant ROGER NAVARRO delivered unto plaintiff six (6) On Navarro’s motion, both cases were duly consolidated on
post-dated checks each in the amount of SIXTY-SIX December 13, 1999.
2
In its May 8, 2000 order, the RTC dismissed the case on the Lastly, Navarro posits that since the two writs of replevin
ground that the complaints did not state a cause of action. were issued based on flawed complaints, the vehicles were
illegally seized from his possession and should be returned
In response to the motion for reconsideration Karen Go to him immediately.
filed dated May 26, 2000,11 the RTC issued another order
dated July 26, 2000 setting aside the order of dismissal. Karen Go, on the other hand, claims that it is misleading
Acting on the presumption that Glenn Go’s leasing business for Navarro to state that she has no real interest in the
is a conjugal property, the RTC held that Karen Go had subject of the complaint, even if the lease agreements
sufficient interest in his leasing business to file the action were signed only by her husband, Glenn Go; she is the
against Navarro. However, the RTC held that Karen Go owner of Kargo Enterprises and Glenn Go signed the lease
should have included her husband, Glenn Go, in the agreements merely as the manager of Kargo Enterprises.
complaint based on Section 4, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court Moreover, Karen Go maintains that Navarro’s insistence
(Rules).12 Thus, the lower court ordered Karen Go to file a that Kargo Enterprises is Karen Go’s paraphernal property
motion for the inclusion of Glenn Go as co- is without basis. Based on the law and jurisprudence on the
plaintiff.1avvphi1 matter, all property acquired during the marriage is
presumed to be conjugal property. Finally, Karen Go insists
When the RTC denied Navarro’s motion for reconsideration that her complaints sufficiently established a cause of
on March 7, 2001, Navarro filed a petition for certiorari action against Navarro. Thus, when the RTC ordered her to
with the CA, essentially contending that the RTC include her husband as co-plaintiff, this was merely to
committed grave abuse of discretion when it reconsidered comply with the rule that spouses should sue jointly, and
the dismissal of the case and directed Karen Go to amend was not meant to cure the complaints’ lack of cause of
her complaints by including her husband Glenn Go as co- action.
plaintiff. According to Navarro, a complaint which failed to
state a cause of action could not be converted into one THE COURT’S RULING
with a cause of action by mere amendment or
supplemental pleading. We find the petition devoid of merit.
On October 16, 2001, the CA denied Navarro’s petition and Karen Go is the real party-in-interest
affirmed the RTC’s order.13 The CA also denied Navarro’s
motion for reconsideration in its resolution of May 29, The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every
2002,14 leading to the filing of the present petition. action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party-in-interest, i.e., the party who stands to be
THE PETITION benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit.15
Navarro alleges that even if the lease agreements were in
the name of Kargo Enterprises, since it did not have the Interestingly, although Navarro admits that Karen Go is the
requisite juridical personality to sue, the actual parties to registered owner of the business name Kargo Enterprises,
the agreement are himself and Glenn Go. Since it was he still insists that Karen Go is not a real party-in-interest
Karen Go who filed the complaints and not Glenn Go, she in the case. According to Navarro, while the lease contracts
was not a real party-in-interest and the complaints failed were in Kargo Enterprises’ name, this was merely a trade
to state a cause of action. name without a juridical personality, so the actual parties
to the lease agreements were Navarro and Glenn Go, to the
Navarro posits that the RTC erred when it ordered the exclusion of Karen Go.
amendment of the complaint to include Glenn Go as a co-
plaintiff, instead of dismissing the complaint outright As a corollary, Navarro contends that the RTC acted with
because a complaint which does not state a cause of action grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the inclusion of
cannot be converted into one with a cause of action by a Glenn Go as co-plaintiff, since this in effect created a
mere amendment or a supplemental pleading. In effect, cause of action for the complaints when in truth, there was
the lower court created a cause of action for Karen Go none.
when there was none at the time she filed the complaints.
We do not find Navarro’s arguments persuasive.
Even worse, according to Navarro, the inclusion of Glenn
Go as co-plaintiff drastically changed the theory of the The central factor in appreciating the issues presented in
complaints, to his great prejudice. Navarro claims that the this case is the business name Kargo Enterprises. The name
lower court gravely abused its discretion when it assumed appears in the title of the Complaint where the plaintiff
that the leased vehicles are part of the conjugal property was identified as "KAREN T. GO doing business under the
of Glenn and Karen Go. Since Karen Go is the registered name KARGO ENTERPRISES," and this identification was
owner of Kargo Enterprises, the vehicles subject of the repeated in the first paragraph of the Complaint.
complaint are her paraphernal properties and the RTC Paragraph 2 defined the business KARGO ENTERPRISES
gravely erred when it ordered the inclusion of Glenn Go as undertakes. Paragraph 3 continued with the allegation that
a co-plaintiff. the defendant "leased from plaintiff a certain motor
vehicle" that was thereafter described. Significantly, the
Navarro likewise faults the lower court for setting the trial Complaint specifies and attaches as its integral part the
of the case in the same order that required Karen Go to Lease Agreement that underlies the transaction between
amend her complaints, claiming that by issuing this order, the plaintiff and the defendant. Again, the name KARGO
the trial court violated Rule 10 of the Rules. ENTERPRISES entered the picture as this Lease Agreement
provides:
Even assuming the complaints stated a cause of action
against him, Navarro maintains that the complaints were This agreement, made and entered into by and between:
premature because no prior demand was made on him to
comply with the provisions of the lease agreements before GLENN O. GO, of legal age, married, with post office
the complaints for replevin were filed. address at xxx, herein referred to as the LESSOR-SELLER;
representing KARGO ENTERPRISES as its Manager,
3
As the registered owner of Kargo Enterprises, Karen Go is This provision, by its terms, allows either Karen or Glenn
the party who will directly benefit from or be injured by a Go to speak and act with authority in managing their
judgment in this case. Thus, contrary to Navarro’s conjugal property, i.e., Kargo Enterprises. No need exists,
contention, Karen Go is the real party-in-interest, and it is therefore, for one to obtain the consent of the other
legally incorrect to say that her Complaint does not state a before performing an act of administration or any act that
cause of action because her name did not appear in the does not dispose of or encumber their conjugal property.
Lease Agreement that her husband signed in behalf of
Under Article 108 of the Family Code, the conjugal
Kargo Enterprises. Whether Glenn Go can legally sign the
partnership is governed by the rules on the contract of
Lease Agreement in his capacity as a manager of Kargo
4
partnership in all that is not in conflict with what is with the presumption that the credits themselves are part
expressly determined in this Chapter or by the spouses in of conjugal funds, Article 1811 makes Quirino and Milagros
their marriage settlements. In other words, the property de Guzman co-owners of the alleged credit.
relations of the husband and wife shall be governed
primarily by Chapter 4 on Conjugal Partnership of Gains of Being co-owners of the alleged credit, Quirino and Milagros
the Family Code and, suppletorily, by the spouses’ de Guzman may separately bring an action for the recovery
marriage settlement and by the rules on partnership under thereof. In the fairly recent cases of Baloloy v.
the Civil Code. In the absence of any evidence of a Hular and Adlawan v. Adlawan, we held that, in a co-
marriage settlement between the spouses Go, we look at ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of
the Civil Code provision on partnership for guidance. co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the
other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is
A rule on partnership applicable to the spouses’ presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his co-
circumstances is Article 1811 of the Civil Code, which owners. In the latter case and in that of De Guia v. Court of
states: Appeals, we also held that Article 487 of the Civil Code,
which provides that any of the co-owners may bring an
Art. 1811. A partner is a co-owner with the other partners action for ejectment, covers all kinds of action for the
of specific partnership property. recovery of possession.
The incidents of this co-ownership are such that: In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are
real parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of
(1) A partner, subject to the provisions of this Title and to the Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, any one of them
any agreement between the partners, has an equal right may bring an action, any kind of action, for the recovery of
with his partners to possess specific partnership co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-
property for partnership purposes; xxx owners, namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the
recovery of the co-owned property, is an indispensable
Under this provision, Glenn and Karen Go are effectively
party thereto. The other co-owners are not indispensable
co-owners of Kargo Enterprises and the properties
parties. They are not even necessary parties, for a
registered under this name; hence, both have an equal
complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without
right to seek possession of these properties. Applying
their participation, since the suit is presumed to have been
Article 484 of the Civil Code, which states that "in default
filed for the benefit of all co-owners.25[Emphasis
of contracts, or special provisions, co-ownership shall be
supplied.]
governed by the provisions of this Title," we find further
support in Article 487 of the Civil Code that allows any of Under this ruling, either of the spouses Go may bring an
the co-owners to bring an action in ejectment with respect action against Navarro to recover possession of the Kargo
to the co-owned property. Enterprises-leased vehicles which they co-own. This
conclusion is consistent with Article 124 of the Family
While ejectment is normally associated with actions
Code, supporting as it does the position that either spouse
involving real property, we find that this rule can be
may act on behalf of the conjugal partnership, so long as
applied to the circumstances of the present case, following
they do not dispose of or encumber the property in
our ruling in Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman.24 In this
question without the other spouse’s consent.
case, one spouse filed an action for the recovery of credit,
a personal property considered conjugal property, without On this basis, we hold that since Glenn Go is not strictly an
including the other spouse in the action. In resolving the indispensable party in the action to recover possession of
issue of whether the other spouse was required to be the leased vehicles, he only needs to be impleaded as a
included as a co-plaintiff in the action for the recovery of pro-forma party to the suit, based on Section 4, Rule 4 of
the credit, we said: the Rules, which states:
Milagros de Guzman, being presumed to be a co-owner of Section 4. Spouses as parties. – Husband and wife shall sue
the credits allegedly extended to the spouses Carandang, or be sued jointly, except as provided by law.
seems to be either an indispensable or a necessary party. If
she is an indispensable party, dismissal would be proper. If Non-joinder of indispensable parties not ground to dismiss
she is merely a necessary party, dismissal is not warranted, action
whether or not there was an order for her inclusion in the
complaint pursuant to Section 9, Rule 3. Even assuming that Glenn Go is an indispensable party to
the action, we have held in a number of cases26 that the
Article 108 of the Family Code provides: misjoinder or non-joinder of indispensable parties in a
complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action. As we
Art. 108. The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the stated in Macababbad v. Masirag:27
rules on the contract of partnership in all that is not in
conflict with what is expressly determined in this Chapter Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that
or by the spouses in their marriage settlements. neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is a ground for
the dismissal of an action, thus:
This provision is practically the same as the Civil Code
provision it superseded: Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Neither
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal
Art. 147. The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of
rules on the contract of partnership in all that is not in the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at
conflict with what is expressly determined in this Chapter. any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any
claim against a misjoined party may be severed and
In this connection, Article 1811 of the Civil Code provides
proceeded with separately.
that "[a] partner is a co-owner with the other partners of
specific partnership property." Taken with the presumption In Domingo v. Scheer, this Court held that the proper
of the conjugal nature of the funds used to finance the four remedy when a party is left out is to implead the
checks used to pay for petitioners’ stock subscriptions, and
5
(c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a III. The lower court also erred in declaring null and void the
tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a mortgage executed by plaintiff in favor of the intervenor
writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise and, thereby, dismissing the complaint in intervention.
placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is
exempt from such seizure or custody; and IV. The lower court lastly erred in ordering the receiver J.
D. Mencarini to deliver to the defendant the aforesaid
(d) The actual market value of the property. machines upon petition of the plaintiff.
The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the In order to have a clear idea of the question, it is proper to
adverse party in double the value of the property as stated state the facts bearing on the case as they appear in the
in the affidavit aforementioned, for the return of the decision and judgment of the lower court and in the
property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, documents which constitute all the evidence adduced by
and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he the parties during the trial.
may recover from the applicant in the action.
On June 6, 1931, plaintiff and defendant organized a civil
We see nothing in these provisions which requires the partnership which they named "Galvan y Compañia" to
applicant to make a prior demand on the possessor of the engage in the manufacture and sale of paper and other
property before he can file an action for a writ of replevin. stationery. they agreed to invest therein a capital of
Thus, prior demand is not a condition precedent to an P100,000, but as a matter of fact they did not cover more
action for a writ of replevin. than one-fifth thereof, each contributing P10,000. Hardly a
year after such organization, the plaintiff commenced the
More importantly, Navarro is no longer in the position to present case in the above-mentioned court to ask for the
claim that a prior demand is necessary, as he has already dissolution of the partnership and to compel defendant to
admitted in his Answers that he had received the letters whom the management thereof was entrusted to submit an
that Karen Go sent him, demanding that he either pay his accounting of his administration and to deliver to him his
unpaid obligations or return the leased motor vehicles. share as such partner. In his answer defendant expressed
Navarro’s position that a demand is necessary and has not his conformity to the dissolution of the partnership and the
been made is therefore totally unmeritorious. liquidation of its affairs; but by way of counterclaim he
asked that, having covered a deficit incurred by the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition
partnership amounting to P4,000 with his own money,
for review for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner Roger
plaintiff reimburse him of one-half of said sum. On petition
V. Navarro.
of the plaintiff a receiver and liquidator to take charge of
SO ORDERED. the properties and business for the partnership while the
6
same was not yet definitely dissolved, was appointed, the deed of mortgage are the same as those in dispute and
person chosen being Juan D. Mencarini. The latter was which are found on Ylaya Street because said exhibit being
already discharging the duties of his office when the court, merely a private document, the same cannot vary or alter
by virtue of a petition ex parte of the plaintiff, issued the the terms of a public document which is Exhibit B or the
order of May 24, 1933, requiring said receiver to deliver to deed of mortgage.
him (plaintiff) certain machines which were then at Nos.
705-707 Ylaya Street, Manila but authorizing him to charge 2. The second error attributed to the lower court is
their value of P4,500 against the portion which may baseless. The evidence of record shows that the machines
eventually be due to said plaintiff. To comply with said in contention originally belonged to the defendant and
order, the receiver delivered to plaintiff the keys to the from him were transferred to the partnership Galvan y
place where the machines were found, which was the same Compania. This being the case, said machines belong to the
place where defendant had his home; but before he could partnership and not to him, and shall belong to it until
take actual possession of said machines, upon the strong partition is effected according to the result thereof after
opposition of defendant, the court, on motion of the latter, the liquidation.
suspended the effects of its order of May 24, 1933. In the
meantime the judgments rendered in cases Nos. 42794 and 3. The last two errors attributed by the appellant to the
43070 entitled "Philippine Education Co., Inc. vs. Enrique lower court have already been disposed of by the
Clemente" for the recovery of a sum of money, and "Jose considerations above set forth. they are as baseless as the
Echevarria vs. Enrique Clemente", also for the recovery of a previous ones.
sum of money, respectively, were made executory; and in
In view of all the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is
order to avoid the attachment and subsequent sale of the
affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
machines by the sheriff for the satisfaction from the
proceeds thereof of the judgments rendered in the two Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion,
cases aforecited, plaintiff agreed with the intervenor, who and Moran, JJ., concur.
is his nephew, to execute, as he in fact executed in favor
of the latter, a deed of mortgage Exhibit B encumbering
the machines described in said deed in which it is stated
that "they are situated on Singalong Street No. 1163", [G.R. No. 144214. July 14, 2003]
which is a place entirely different from the house Nos. 705
and 707 on Ylaya Street hereinbefore mentioned. The one
year agreed upon in the deed of mortgage for the
fulfillment by the plaintiff of the obligation he had LUZVIMINDA J. VILLAREAL, DIOGENES VILLAREAL and
contracted with the intervenor, having expired, the latter CARMELITO JOSE, petitioners, vs. DONALDO
commenced case No. 49629 to collect his mortgage credit. EFREN C. RAMIREZ and Spouses CESAR G.
The intervenor, as plaintiff in the said case, obtained RAMIREZ JR. and CARMELITA C.
judgment in his favor because the defendant did not RAMIREZ, respondents.
interpose any defense or objection, and, moreover,
admitted being really indebted to the intervenor in the DECISION
amount set forth in the deed of mortgage Exhibit B. The PANGANIBAN, J.:
machines which the intervenor said were mortgaged to him
were then in fact in custodia legis, as they were under the A share in a partnership can be returned only after
control of the receiver and liquidator Juan D. Mencarini. It the completion of the latters dissolution, liquidation and
was, therefore, useless for the intervenor to attach the winding up of the business.
same in view of the receiver's opposition; and the question
having been brought to court, it decided that nothing could
be done because the receiver was not a party to the case The Case
which the intervenor instituted to collect his aforesaid
credit. (Civil case No. 49629.) The question ended thus
because the intervenor did not take any other step until he The Petition for Review on Certiorari before us
thought of joining in this case as intervenor. challenges the March 23, 2000 Decision[1] and the July 26,
2000 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals[3] (CA) in CA-GR
1. From the foregoing facts, it is clear that plaintiff could CV No. 41026.The assailed Decision disposed as follows:
not obtain possession of the machines in question. The
constructive possession deducible from the fact that he had WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision
dated July 21, 1992 rendered by the Regional Trial Court,
the keys to the place where the machines were found
Branch 148, Makati City is hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED
(Ylaya Street Nos. 705-707), as they had been delivered to and in lieu thereof a new decision is rendered ordering the
him by the receiver, does not help him any because the [petitioners] jointly and severally to pay and reimburse to
lower court suspended the effects of the other whereby the [respondents] the amount of P253,114.00. No
keys were delivered to him a few days after its issuance; pronouncement as to costs.[4]
and thereafter revoked it entirely in the appealed decision.
Furthermore, when he attempted to take actual possession Reconsideration was denied in the impugned
of the machines, the defendant did not allow him to do so. Resolution.
Consequently, if he did not have actual possession of the
machines, he could not in any manner mortgage them, for
while it is true that the oft-mentioned deed of mortgage The Facts
Exhibit B was annotated in the registry of property, it is no
less true the machines to which it refers are not the same
as those in question because the latter are on Ylaya Street On July 25, 1984, Luzviminda J. Villareal, Carmelito
Nos. 705-707 and the former are on Singalong Street No. Jose and Jesus Jose formed a partnership with a capital
of P750,000 for the operation of a restaurant and catering
1163. It can not be said that Exhibit B-1, allegedly a
business under the name Aquarius Food House and Catering
supplementary contract between the plaintiff and the Services.[5] Villareal was appointed general manager and
intervenor, shows that the machines referred to in the Carmelito Jose, operations manager.
7
Before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Hence, this Petition.[20]
Branch 59, respondents subsequently filed a
Complaint[11] dated November 10, 1987, for the collection
of a sum of money from petitioners.
Issues
In their Answer, petitioners contended that
respondents had expressed a desire to withdraw from the
partnership and had called for its dissolution under Articles
In their Memorandum,[21] petitioners submit the
1830 and 1831 of the Civil Code; that respondents had been
following issues for our consideration:
paid, upon the turnover to them of furniture and
equipment worth over P400,000; and that the latter had no
right to demand a return of their equity because their 9.1. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals decision
share, together with the rest of the capital of the ordering the distribution of the capital contribution,
partnership, had been spent as a result of irreversible instead of the net capital after the dissolution and
business losses.[12] liquidation of a partnership, thereby treating the capital
contribution like a loan, is in accordance with law and
In their Reply, respondents alleged that they did not jurisprudence;
know of any loan encumbrance on the
restaurant. According to them, if such allegation were 9.2. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals decision
true, then the loans incurred by petitioners should be ordering the petitioners to jointly and severally pay and
regarded as purely personal and, as such, not chargeable to reimburse the amount of [P]253,114.00 is supported by the
the partnership. The former further averred that they had evidence on record; and
not received any regular report or accounting from the
latter, who had solely managed the business. Respondents
also alleged that they expected the equipment and the 9.3. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals was correct in
furniture stored in their house to be removed by petitioners making [n]o pronouncement as to costs.[22]
as soon as the latter found a better location for the
restaurant.[13] On closer scrutiny, the issues are as follows: (1)
whether petitioners are liable to respondents for the
Respondents filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to Sell latters share in the partnership; (2) whether the CAs
or Otherwise Dispose of Restaurant Furniture and computation of P253,114 as respondents share is correct;
Equipment[14] on July 8, 1988. The furniture and the and (3) whether the CA was likewise correct in not
equipment stored in their house were inventoried and assessing costs.
appraised at P29,000.[15] The display freezer was sold
for P5,000 and the proceeds were paid to them.[16]
After trial, the RTC[17] ruled that the parties had
This Courts Ruling
voluntarily entered into a partnership, which could be
dissolved at any time. Petitioners clearly intended to
dissolve it when they stopped operating the
The Petition has merit.
restaurant. Hence, the trial court, in its July 21, 1992
Decision, held them liable as follows:[18]
(a) Actual damages in the amount of P250,000.00 Both the trial and the appellate courts found that a
partnership had indeed existed, and that it was dissolved
on March 1, 1987. They found that the dissolution took
(b) Attorneys fee in the amount of P30,000.00 place when respondents informed petitioners of the
intention to discontinue it because of the formers
(c) Costs of suit. dissatisfaction with, and loss of trust in, the latters
management of the partnership affairs. These findings
were amply supported by the evidence on
record. Respondents consequently demanded from
8
petitioners the return of their one-third equity in the Third, the CA failed to reduce the capitalization
partnership. by P250,000, which was the amount paid by the partnership
to Jesus Jose when he withdrew from the partnership.
We hold that respondents have no right to demand
from petitioners the return of their equity share. Except as Because of the above-mentioned transactions, the
managers of the partnership, petitioners did not personally partnership capital was actually reduced. When petitioners
hold its equity or assets. The partnership has a juridical and respondents ventured into business together, they
personality separate and distinct from that of each of the should have prepared for the fact that their investment
partners.[23] Since the capital was contributed to the would either grow or shrink. In the present case, the
partnership, not to petitioners, it is the partnership that investment of respondents substantially dwindled. The
must refund the equity of the retiring partners.[24] original amount of P250,000 which they had invested could
no longer be returned to them, because one third of the
partnership properties at the time of dissolution did not
amount to that much.
Second Issue:
What Must Be Returned? It is a long established doctrine that the law does not
relieve parties from the effects of unwise, foolish or
disastrous contracts they have entered into with all the
Since it is the partnership, as a separate and distinct required formalities and with full awareness of what they
entity, that must refund the shares of the partners, the were doing. Courts have no power to relieve them from
amount to be refunded is necessarily limited to its total obligations they have voluntarily assumed, simply because
resources. In other words, it can only pay out what it has in their contracts turn out to be disastrous deals or unwise
its coffers, which consists of all its assets. However, before investments.[29]
the partners can be paid their shares, the creditors of the
Petitioners further argue that respondents acted
partnership must first be compensated.[25] After all the
negligently by permitting the partnership assets in their
creditors have been paid, whatever is left of the
custody to deteriorate to the point of being almost
partnership assets becomes available for the payment of
worthless. Supposedly, the latter should have liquidated
the partners shares.
these sole tangible assets of the partnership and considered
Evidently, in the present case, the exact amount of the proceeds as payment of their net capital. Hence,
refund equivalent to respondents one-third share in the petitioners argue that the turnover of the remaining
partnership cannot be determined until all the partnership partnership assets to respondents was precisely the manner
assets will have been liquidated -- in other words, sold and of liquidating the partnership and fully settling the latters
converted to cash -- and all partnership creditors, if any, share in the partnership.
paid. The CAs computation of the amount to be refunded
We disagree. The delivery of the store furniture and
to respondents as their share was thus erroneous.
equipment to private respondents was for the purpose of
First, it seems that the appellate court was under the storage. They were unaware that the restaurant would no
misapprehension that the total capital contribution was longer be reopened by petitioners. Hence, the former
equivalent to the gross assets to be distributed to the cannot be faulted for not disposing of the stored items to
partners at the time of the dissolution of the recover their capital investment.
partnership. We cannot sustain the underlying idea that the
capital contribution at the beginning of the partnership
remains intact, unimpaired and available for distribution or
return to the partners. Such idea is speculative, Third Issue:
conjectural and totally without factual or legal support. Costs
JOSEFINA P. REALUBIT, Petitioner, from that which he affixed on their Joint Venture
vs. Agreement; that they refused the Spouses Jaso’s demand in
PROSENCIO D. JASO and EDEN G. JASO, Respondents. view of the dubious circumstances surrounding their
acquisition of Biondo’s share in the business which was
DECISION established at Don Antonio Heights, Commonwealth
Avenue, Quezon City; that said business had already
stopped operations on 13 January 1996 when its plant shut
PEREZ, J.: down after its power supply was disconnected by MERALCO
for non-payment of utility bills; and, that it was their own
The validity as well as the consequences of an assignment tube ice trading business which had been moved to 66-C
of rights in a joint venture are at issue in this petition for Cenacle Drive, Sanville Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City
review filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil that the Spouses Jaso mistook for the ice manufacturing
Procedure,1 assailing the 30 April 2007 Decision2rendered business established in partnership with Biondo.9
by the Court of Appeals’ (CA) then Twelfth Division in CA-
G.R. CV No. 73861,3 the dispositive portion of which states: The issues thus joined and the mandatory pre-trial
conference subsequently terminated, the RTC went on to
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is SET ASIDE and try the case on its merits and, thereafter, to render its
we order the dissolution of the joint venture between Decision dated 17 September 2001, discounting the
defendant-appellant Josefina Realubit and Francis Eric existence of sufficient evidence from which the income,
Amaury Biondo and the subsequent conduct of accounting, assets and the supposed dissolution of the joint venture can
liquidation of assets and division of shares of the joint be adequately reckoned. Upon the finding, however, that
venture business. the Spouses Jaso had been nevertheless subrogated to
Biondo’s rights in the business in view of their valid
Let a copy hereof and the records of the case be remanded acquisition of the latter’s share as capitalist partner,10 the
to the trial court for appropriate proceedings.4 RTC disposed of the case in the following wise:
The Court’s Ruling From the foregoing provision, it is evident that "(t)he
transfer by a partner of his partnership interest does not
We find the petition bereft of merit. make the assignee of such interest a partner of the firm,
nor entitle the assignee to interfere in the management of
the partnership business or to receive anything except the
The Spouses Realubit argue that, in upholding its validity, assignee’s profits. The assignment does not purport to
both the RTC and the CA inordinately gave premium to the transfer an interest in the partnership, but only a future
notarization of the 27 June 1997 Deed of Assignment contingent right to a portion of the ultimate residue as the
executed by Biondo in favor of the Spouses Jaso. Calling assignor may become entitled to receive by virtue of his
attention to the latter’s failure to present before the RTC proportionate interest in the capital."30 Since a partner’s
said assignor or, at the very least, the witnesses to said interest in the partnership includes his share in the
document, the Spouses Realubit maintain that the profits,31 we find that the CA committed no reversible error
testimony of Rolando Diaz, the Notary Public before whom in ruling that the Spouses Jaso are entitled to Biondo’s
the same was acknowledged, did not suffice to establish its share in the profits, despite Juanita’s lack of consent to
authenticity and/or validity. They insist that notarization the assignment of said Frenchman’s interest in the joint
did not automatically and conclusively confer validity on venture. Although Eden did not, moreover, become a
said deed, since it is still entirely possible that Biondo did partner as a consequence of the assignment and/or acquire
not execute said deed or, for that matter, appear before the right to require an accounting of the partnership
said notary public.15 The dearth of merit in the Spouses business, the CA correctly granted her prayer for
Realubit’s position is, however, immediately evident from dissolution of the joint venture conformably with the right
the settled rule that documents acknowledged before granted to the purchaser of a partner’s interest under
notaries public are public documents which are admissible Article 1831 of the Civil Code.32 1âwphi1
in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to
their authenticity and due execution.16
Considering that they involve questions of fact, neither are
we inclined to hospitably entertain the Spouses Realubit’s
It cannot be gainsaid that, as a public document, the Deed insistence on the supposed fact that Josefina’s joint
of Assignment Biondo executed in favor of Eden not only venture with Biondo had already been dissolved and that
enjoys a presumption of regularity17 but is also considered the ice manufacturing business at 66-C Cenacle Drive,
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.18A party Sanville Subdivision, Project 6, Quezon City was merely a
assailing the authenticity and due execution of a notarized continuation of the same business they previously operated
document is, consequently, required to present evidence under a single proprietorship. It is well-entrenched
that is clear, convincing and more than merely doctrine that questions of fact are not proper subjects of
preponderant.19 In view of the Spouses Realubit’s failure to appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as
discharge this onus, we find that both the RTC and the CA this mode of appeal is confined to questions of law. 33 Upon
correctly upheld the authenticity and validity of said Deed the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts, we are
of Assignment upon the combined strength of the above- not duty bound to examine the evidence introduced by the
discussed disputable presumptions and the testimonies parties below to determine if the trial and the appellate
elicited from Eden20 and Notary Public Rolando Diaz.21 As courts correctly assessed and evaluated the evidence on
for the Spouses’ Realubit’s bare assertion that Biondo’s record.34 Absent showing that the factual findings
signature on the same document appears to be forged, complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on
suffice it to say that, like fraud,22 forgery is never record or the assailed judgment is based on
presumed and must likewise be proved by clear and misapprehension of facts, the Court will limit itself to
convincing evidence by the party alleging the same.23Aside reviewing only errors of law.35
from not being borne out by a comparison of Biondo’s
signatures on the Joint Venture Agreement24 and the Deed
of Assignment,25 said forgery is, moreover debunked by Based on the evidence on record, moreover, both the
Biondo’s duly authenticated certification dated 17 RTC36 and the CA37 ruled out the dissolution of the joint
November 1998, confirming the transfer of his interest in venture and concluded that the ice manufacturing business
the business in favor of Eden.26 at the aforesaid address was the same one established by
Juanita and Biondo. As a rule, findings of fact of the CA are
binding and conclusive upon this Court,38 and will not be
Generally understood to mean an organization formed for reviewed or disturbed on appeal39 unless the case falls
some temporary purpose, a joint venture is likened to a under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) when
particular partnership or one which "has for its object the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
determinate things, their use or fruits, or a specific speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the
undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
vocation."27 The rule is settled that joint ventures are impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
governed by the law on partnerships28 which are, in turn, (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
based on mutual agency or delectus personae.29 Insofar as a facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6)
partner’s conveyance of the entirety of his interest in the when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues
partnership is concerned, Article 1813 of the Civil Code of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of
provides as follows: both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are
contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of
Art. 1813. A conveyance by a partner of his whole interest fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
in the partnership does not itself dissolve the partnership, on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
or, as against the other partners in the absence of petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs
agreement, entitle the assignee, during the continuance of are not disputed by the respondents; and, (10) when the
the partnership, to interfere in the management or findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed
administration of the partnership business or affairs, or to absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
require any information or account of partnership record.40 Unfortunately for the Spouses Realubit’s cause,
transactions, or to inspect the partnership books; but it not one of the foregoing exceptions applies to the case.
merely entitles the assignee to receive in accordance with
his contracts the profits to which the assigning partners WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit and
would otherwise be entitled. However, in case of fraud in the assailed CA Decision dated 30 April 2007 is,
the management of the partnership, the assignee may avail accordingly, AFFIRMED in toto.
himself of the usual remedies.
SO ORDERED.
In the case of a dissolution of the partnership, the assignee
is entitled to receive his assignor’s interest and may
require an account from the date only of the last account
agreed to by all the partners.
July 30, 1979
11
PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE USE OF THE used by them carry new letterheads indicating the years
FIRM NAME "SYCIP, SALAZAR, FELICIANO, HERNANDEZ & when their respective deceased partners were connected
CASTILLO." LUCIANO E. SALAZAR, FLORENTINO P. with the firm; petitioners will notify all leading national
FELICIANO, BENILDO G. HERNANDEZ. GREGORIO R. and international law directories of the fact of their
CASTILLO. ALBERTO P. SAN JUAN, JUAN C. REYES. JR., respective deceased partners' deaths. 5
ANDRES G. GATMAITAN, JUSTINO H. CACANINDIN, NOEL
A. LAMAN, ETHELWOLDO E. FERNANDEZ, ANGELITO C. 5. No local custom prohibits the continued use of a
IMPERIO, EDUARDO R. CENIZA, TRISTAN A. CATINDIG, deceased partner's name in a professional firm's
ANCHETA K. TAN, and ALICE V. PESIGAN,petitioners. name; 6 there is no custom or usage in the Philippines, or
at least in the Greater Manila Area, which recognizes that
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO the name of a law firm necessarily Identifies the individual
CONTINUE USE OF THE FIRM NAME "OZAETA, ROMULO, DE members of the firm. 7
LEON, MABANTA & REYES." RICARDO J. ROMULO,
BENJAMIN M. DE LEON, ROMAN MABANTA, JR., JOSE MA, 6. The continued use of a deceased partner's name in the
REYES, JESUS S. J. SAYOC, EDUARDO DE LOS ANGELES, firm name of law partnerships has been consistently
and JOSE F. BUENAVENTURA, petitioners. allowed by U.S. Courts and is an accepted practice in the
legal profession of most countries in the world. 8
RESOLUTION
The question involved in these Petitions first came under
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1 consideration by this Court in 1953 when a law firm in Cebu
(the Deen case) continued its practice of including in its
Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by firm name that of a deceased partner, C.D. Johnston. The
the surviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycip, who died matter was resolved with this Court advising the firm to
on May 5, 1975, and 2) by the surviving partners of Atty. desist from including in their firm designation the name of
Herminio Ozaeta, who died on February 14, 1976, praying C. D. Johnston, who has long been dead."
that they be allowed to continue using, in the names of
their firms, the names of partners who had passed away. In The same issue was raised before this Court in 1958 as an
the Court's Resolution of September 2, 1976, both Petitions incident in G. R. No. L-11964, entitled Register of Deeds of
were ordered consolidated. Manila vs. China Banking Corporation. The law firm of
Perkins & Ponce Enrile moved to intervene asamicus
Petitioners base their petitions on the following arguments: curiae. Before acting thereon, the Court, in a Resolution of
April 15, 1957, stated that it "would like to be informed
why the name of Perkins is still being used although Atty.
1. Under the law, a partnership is not prohibited from E. A. Perkins is already dead." In a Manifestation dated May
continuing its business under a firm name which includes 21, 1957, the law firm of Perkins and Ponce Enrile, raising
the name of a deceased partner; in fact, Article 1840 of substantially the same arguments as those now being
the Civil Code explicitly sanctions the practice when it raised by petitioners, prayed that the continued use of the
provides in the last paragraph that: têñ.£îhqw⣠firm name "Perkins & Ponce Enrile" be held proper.
The use by the person or partnership On June 16, 1958, this Court resolved: têñ.£îhqwâ£
continuing the business of the partnership
name, or the name of a deceased partner
as part thereof, shall not of itself make After carefully considering the reasons
the individual property of the deceased given by Attorneys Alfonso Ponce Enrile
partner liable for any debts contracted by and Associates for their continued use of
such person or partnership. 1 the name of the deceased E. G. Perkins,
the Court found no reason to depart from
the policy it adopted in June 1953 when
2. In regulating other professions, such as accountancy and it required Attorneys Alfred P. Deen and
engineering, the legislature has authorized the adoption of Eddy A. Deen of Cebu City to desist from
firm names without any restriction as to the use, in such including in their firm designation, the
firm name, of the name of a deceased partner; 2 the name of C. D. Johnston, deceased. The
legislative authorization given to those engaged in the Court believes that, in view of the
practice of accountancy — a profession requiring the same personal and confidential nature of the
degree of trust and confidence in respect of clients as that relations between attorney and client,
implicit in the relationship of attorney and client — to and the high standards demanded in the
acquire and use a trade name, strongly indicates that there canons of professional ethics, no practice
is no fundamental policy that is offended by the continued should be allowed which even in a remote
use by a firm of professionals of a firm name which degree could give rise to the possibility of
includes the name of a deceased partner, at least where deception. Said attorneys are accordingly
such firm name has acquired the characteristics of a "trade advised to drop the name "PERKINS" from
name." 3 their firm name.
3. The Canons of Professional Ethics are not transgressed by Petitioners herein now seek a re-examination of the policy
the continued use of the name of a deceased partner in the thus far enunciated by the Court.
firm name of a law partnership because Canon 33 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the American Bar
Association declares that: têñ.£îhqw⣠The Court finds no sufficient reason to depart from the
rulings thus laid down.
... The continued use of the name of a
deceased or former partner when A. Inasmuch as "Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez and
permissible by local custom, is not Castillo" and "Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta and
unethical but care should be taken that Reyes" are partnerships, the use in their partnership names
no imposition or deception is practiced of the names of deceased partners will run counter to
through this use. ... 4 Article 1815 of the Civil Code which provides: têñ.£îhqwâ£
4. There is no possibility of imposition or deception Art. 1815. Every partnership shall operate
because the deaths of their respective deceased partners under a firm name, which may or may not
were well-publicized in all newspapers of general include the name of one or more of the
circulation for several days; the stationeries now being partners.
12
Those who, not being members of the asset. ... (ibid, s 203, p. 115) (Emphasis
partnership, include their names in the supplied)
firm name, shall be subject to the
liability, of a partner. C. A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened
to partnerships formed by other professionals or for
It is clearly tacit in the above provision that names in a business. For one thing, the law on accountancy specifically
firm name of a partnership must either be those of living allows the use of a trade name in connection with the
partners and. in the case of non-partners, should be living practice of accountancy. 10 têñ.£îhqwâ£
persons who can be subjected to liability. In fact, Article
1825 of the Civil Code prohibits a third person from A partnership for the practice of law is
including his name in the firm name under pain of assuming not a legal entity. It is a mere
the liability of a partner. The heirs of a deceased partner in relationship or association for a particular
a law firm cannot be held liable as the old members to the purpose. ... It is not a partnership formed
creditors of a firm particularly where they are non-lawyers. for the purpose of carrying on trade or
Thus, Canon 34 of the Canons of Professional Ethics business or of holding property." 11 Thus,
"prohibits an agreement for the payment to the widow and it has been stated that "the use of a nom
heirs of a deceased lawyer of a percentage, either gross or de plume, assumed or trade name in law
net, of the fees received from the future business of the practice is improper. 12
deceased lawyer's clients, both because the recipients of
such division are not lawyers and because such payments
will not represent service or responsibility on the part of The usual reason given for different
the recipient. " Accordingly, neither the widow nor the standards of conduct being applicable to
heirs can be held liable for transactions entered into after the practice of law from those pertaining
the death of their lawyer-predecessor. There being no to business is that the law is a profession.
benefits accruing, there ran be no corresponding liability.
Dean Pound, in his recently published
Prescinding the law, there could be practical objections to contribution to the Survey of the Legal
allowing the use by law firms of the names of deceased Profession, (The Lawyer from Antiquity
partners. The public relations value of the use of an old to Modern Times, p. 5) defines a
firm name can tend to create undue advantages and profession as "a group of men pursuing a
disadvantages in the practice of the profession. An able learned art as a common calling in the
lawyer without connections will have to make a name for spirit of public service, — no less a public
himself starting from scratch. Another able lawyer, who service because it may incidentally be a
can join an old firm, can initially ride on that old firm's means of livelihood."
reputation established by deceased partners.
xxx xxx xxx
B. In regards to the last paragraph of Article 1840 of the
Civil Code cited by petitioners, supra, the first factor to Primary characteristics which distinguish
consider is that it is within Chapter 3 of Title IX of the Code the legal profession from business are:
entitled "Dissolution and Winding Up." The Article primarily
deals with the exemption from liability in cases of a 1. A duty of public service, of which the
dissolved partnership, of the individual property of the emolument is a byproduct, and in which
deceased partner for debts contracted by the person or one may attain the highest eminence
partnership which continues the business using the without making much money.
partnership name or the name of the deceased partner as
part thereof. What the law contemplates therein is a hold-
over situation preparatory to formal reorganization. 2. A relation as an "officer of court" to
the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity, and
Secondly, Article 1840 treats more of reliability.
a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather
than of aprofessional partnership, with no saleable good
will but whose reputation depends on the personal 3. A relation to clients in the highest
qualifications of its individual members. Thus, it has been degree fiduciary.
held that a saleable goodwill can exist only in a commercial
partnership and cannot arise in a professional partnership 4. A relation to colleagues at the bar
consisting of lawyers. 9têñ.£îhqw⣠characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business
As a general rule, upon the dissolution of methods of advertising and encroachment
a commercial partnership the succeeding on their practice, or dealing directly with
partners or parties have the right to carry their clients. 13
on the business under the old name, in
the absence of a stipulation forbidding it, "The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional
(s)ince the name of a commercial right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. 14 It is
partnership is a partnership asset limited to persons of good moral character with special
inseparable from the good will of the qualifications duly ascertained and certified. 15 The right
firm. ... (60 Am Jur 2d, s 204, p. 115) does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal
(Emphasis supplied) standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special
privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a
On the other hand, têñ.£îhqw⣠public trust." 16
... a professional partnership the D. Petitioners cited Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional
reputation of which depends or; the Ethics of the American Bar Association" in support of their
individual skill of the members, such as petitions.
partnerships of attorneys or physicians,
has no good win to be distributed as a It is true that Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the
firm asset on its dissolution, however continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner
intrinsically valuable such skill and in the firm name of a law partnership when such a practice
reputation may be, especially where is permissible by local custom but the Canon warns that
there is no provision in the partnership care should be taken that no imposition or deception is
agreement relating to good will as an practiced through this use.
13
It must be conceded that in the Philippines, no local Not so in this jurisdiction where there is no local custom
custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased that sanctions the practice. Custom has been defined as a
or former partner's name in the firm names of law rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly
partnerships. Firm names, under our custom, Identify the observed (practiced) as a social rule, legally binding and
more active and/or more senior members or partners of obligatory. 19 Courts take no judicial notice of custom. A
the law firm. A glimpse at the history of the firms of custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of
petitioners and of other law firms in this country would evidence. 20 A local custom as a source of right cannot be
show how their firm names have evolved and changed from considered by a court of justice unless such custom is
time to time as the composition of the partnership properly established by competent evidence like any other
changed. têñ.£îhqw⣠fact. 21 We find such proof of the existence of a local
custom, and of the elements requisite to constitute the
The continued use of a firm name after same, wanting herein. Merely because something is done as
the death of one or more of the partners a matter of practice does not mean that Courts can rely on
designated by it is proper only where the same for purposes of adjudication as a juridical
sustained by local custom and not where custom. Juridical custom must be differentiated from
by custom this purports to Identify the social custom. The former can supplement statutory law or
active members. ... be applied in the absence of such statute. Not so with the
latter.
There would seem to be a question,
under the working of the Canon, as to the Moreover, judicial decisions applying or interpreting the
propriety of adding the name of a new laws form part of the legal system. 22 When the Supreme
partner and at the same time retaining Court in the Deen and Perkins cases issued its Resolutions
that of a deceased partner who was never directing lawyers to desist from including the names of
a partner with the new one. (H.S. deceased partners in their firm designation, it laid down a
Drinker, op. cit., supra, at pp. 207208) legal rule against which no custom or practice to the
(Emphasis supplied). contrary, even if proven, can prevail. This is not to speak
of our civil law which clearly ordains that a partnership is
dissolved by the death of any partner. 23 Custom which are
The possibility of deception upon the public, real or contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be
consequential, where the name of a deceased partner countenanced. 24
continues to be used cannot be ruled out. A person in
search of legal counsel might be guided by the familiar ring
of a distinguished name appearing in a firm title. The practice of law is intimately and peculiarly related to
the administration of justice and should not be considered
like an ordinary "money-making trade." têñ.£îhqwâ£
E. Petitioners argue that U.S. Courts have consistently
allowed the continued use of a deceased partner's name in
the firm name of law partnerships. But that is so because it ... It is of the essence of a profession that
is sanctioned by custom. it is practiced in a spirit of public service.
A trade ... aims primarily at personal
gain; a profession at the exercise of
In the case of Mendelsohn v. Equitable Life Assurance powers beneficial to mankind. If, as in
Society (33 N.Y.S. 2d 733) which petitioners Salazar, et al. the era of wide free opportunity, we
quoted in their memorandum, the New York Supreme Court think of free competitive self assertion as
sustained the use of the firm name Alexander & Green even the highest good, lawyer and grocer and
if none of the present ten partners of the firm bears either farmer may seem to be freely competing
name because the practice was sanctioned by custom and with their fellows in their calling in order
did not offend any statutory provision or legislative policy each to acquire as much of the world's
and was adopted by agreement of the parties. The Court good as he may within the allowed him by
stated therein: têñ.£îhqw⣠law. But the member of a profession does
not regard himself as in competition with
The practice sought to be proscribed has his professional brethren. He is not
the sanction of custom and offends no bartering his services as is the artisan nor
statutory provision or legislative policy. exchanging the products of his skill and
Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional learning as the farmer sells wheat or
Ethics of both the American Bar corn. There should be no such thing as a
Association and the New York State Bar lawyers' or physicians' strike. The best
Association provides in part as follows: service of the professional man is often
"The continued use of the name of a rendered for no equivalent or for a
deceased or former partner, when trifling equivalent and it is his pride to do
permissible by local custom is not what he does in a way worthy of his
unethical, but care should be taken that profession even if done with no
no imposition or deception is practiced expectation of reward, This spirit of
through this use." There is no question as public service in which the profession of
to local custom. Many firms in the city law is and ought to be exercised is a
use the names of deceased members with prerequisite of sound administration of
the approval of other attorneys, bar justice according to law. The other two
associations and the courts. The elements of a profession, namely,
Appellate Division of the First Department organization and pursuit of a learned art
has considered the matter and reached have their justification in that they
The conclusion that such practice should secure and maintain that spirit. 25
not be prohibited. (Emphasis supplied)
In fine, petitioners' desire to preserve the Identity of their
xxx xxx xxx firms in the eyes of the public must bow to legal and
ethical impediment.
Neither the Partnership Law nor the Penal
Law prohibits the practice in question. ACCORDINGLY, the petitions filed herein are denied and
The use of the firm name herein is also petitioners advised to drop the names "SYCIP" and "OZAETA"
sustainable by reason of agreement from their respective firm names. Those names may,
between the partners. 18 however, be included in the listing of individuals who have
been partners in their firms indicating the years during
which they served as such.
14
The petitions are denied, as there are only four votes for FERNANDO, C.J., concurring:
granting them, seven of the Justices being of the contrary
view, as explained in the plurality opinion of Justice The petitions are denied, as there are only four votes for
Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. It is out of delicadeza that granting them, seven of the Justices being of the contrary
the undersigned did not participate in the disposition of view, as explained in the plurality opinion of Justice
these petitions, as the law office of Sycip, Salazar, Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera. It is out of delicadeza that
Feliciano, Hernandez and Castillo started with the the undersigned did not participate in the disposition of
partnership of Quisumbing, Sycip, and Quisumbing, the these petitions, as the law office of Sycip, Salazar,
senior partner, the late Ramon Quisumbing, being the Feliciano, Hernandez and Castillo started with the
father-in-law of the undersigned, and the most junior partnership of Quisumbing, Sycip, and Quisumbing, the
partner then, Norberto J. Quisumbing, being his brother- senior partner, the late Ramon Quisumbing, being the
in-law. For the record, the undersigned wishes to invite the father-in-law of the undersigned, and the most junior
attention of all concerned, and not only of petitioners, to partner then, Norberto J. Quisumbing, being his brother-
the last sentence of the opinion of Justice Ameurfina in-law. For the record, the undersigned wishes to invite the
Melencio-Herrera: 'Those names [Sycip and Ozaeta] may, attention of all concerned, and not only of petitioners, to
however, be included in the listing of individuals wtes the last sentence of the opinion of Justice Ameurfina
Melencio-Herrera: 'Those names [Sycip and Ozaeta] may,
AQUINO, J., dissenting: however, be included in the listing of individuals wtes
I dissent. The fourteen members of the law firm, Sycip, AQUINO, J., dissenting:
Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo, in their petition
of June 10, 1975, prayed for authority to continue the use I dissent. The fourteen members of the law firm, Sycip,
of that firm name, notwithstanding the death of Attorney Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo, in their petition
Alexander Sycip on May 5, 1975 (May he rest in peace). He of June 10, 1975, prayed for authority to continue the use
was the founder of the firm which was originally known as of that firm name, notwithstanding the death of Attorney
the Sycip Law Office. Alexander Sycip on May 5, 1975 (May he rest in peace). He
was the founder of the firm which was originally known as
On the other hand, the seven surviving partners of the law the Sycip Law Office.
firm, Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes, in their
petition of August 13, 1976, prayed that they be allowed to On the other hand, the seven surviving partners of the law
continue using the said firm name notwithstanding the firm, Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes, in their
death of two partners, former Justice Roman Ozaeta and petition of August 13, 1976, prayed that they be allowed to
his son, Herminio, on May 1, 1972 and February 14, 1976, continue using the said firm name notwithstanding the
respectively. death of two partners, former Justice Roman Ozaeta and
his son, Herminio, on May 1, 1972 and February 14, 1976,
They alleged that the said law firm was a continuation of respectively.
the Ozaeta Law Office which was established in 1957 by
Justice Ozaeta and his son and that, as to the said law They alleged that the said law firm was a continuation of
firm, the name Ozaeta has acquired an institutional and the Ozaeta Law Office which was established in 1957 by
secondary connotation. Justice Ozaeta and his son and that, as to the said law
firm, the name Ozaeta has acquired an institutional and
Article 1840 of the Civil Code, which speaks of the use by secondary connotation.
the partnership of the name of a deceased partner as part
of the partnership name, is cited to justify the petitions. Article 1840 of the Civil Code, which speaks of the use by
Also invoked is the canon that the continued use by a law the partnership of the name of a deceased partner as part
firm of the name of a deceased partner, "when permissible of the partnership name, is cited to justify the petitions.
by local custom, is not unethical" as long as "no imposition Also invoked is the canon that the continued use by a law
or deception is practised through this use" (Canon 33 of the firm of the name of a deceased partner, "when permissible
Canons of Legal Ethics). by local custom, is not unethical" as long as "no imposition
or deception is practised through this use" (Canon 33 of the
I am of the opinion that the petition may be granted with Canons of Legal Ethics).
the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the
two firms (as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip, I am of the opinion that the petition may be granted with
former Justice Ozaeta and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the
period when they served as partners should be stated two firms (as the case may be) that Alexander Sycip,
therein. former Justice Ozaeta and Herminio Ozaeta are dead or the
period when they served as partners should be stated
Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the therein.
use of the names of their deceased founders is to retain the
clients who had customarily sought the legal services of Obviously, the purpose of the two firms in continuing the
Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the use of the names of their deceased founders is to retain the
goodwill attached to the names of those respected and clients who had customarily sought the legal services of
15
Attorneys Sycip and Ozaeta and to benefit from the Que la razon social se denominara "Teck Seing &
goodwill attached to the names of those respected and Co., Ltd." y tendra su domicilio principal en la
esteemed law practitioners. That is a legitimate Calle Magallanes No. 94, de la Ciudad de Cebu,
motivation. Provincia de Cebu, Islas Filipinas.
The retention of their names is not illegal per se. That Que el capital social sera de treinta mil pesos
practice was followed before the war by the law firm of (P30,000) moneda legal de las Islas Filipinas,
James Ross. Notwithstanding the death of Judge Ross the dividido en cinco acciones de a P6,000 como sigue:
founder of the law firm of Ross, Lawrence, Selph and
Carrascoso, his name was retained in the firm name with
an indication of the year when he died. No one complained Santiago Jo Chung Cang . . . . . . . . . . . . .
that the retention of the name of Judge Ross in the firm
name was illegal or unethical. Go Tayco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yap Gueco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G.R. No. 19892 September 6, 1923
Jo Ybec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TECK SEING AND CO., LTD., petitioner-appellee.
SANTIAGO JO CHUNG, ET AL., partners, Lim Yogsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vs.
PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY, ET AL., creditors- Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
appellants.
Del Rosario & Del Rosario and Block, Johnston and Que la duracion de la sociedad sera la de seis
Greenbaum for appellants. años, a contar de la fecha de esta escritura,
F. V. Arias for appellants Jo Ibec and Go Tayco. pudiendo prorrogarse este tiempo a discrecion
No appearance for petitioner and appellee. unanime de todos los accionistas.
Jose A. Espiritu and Felipe Ysmael as amici curiae.
El objeto de la sociedad sera la compra y venta de
MALCOLM, J.: mercaderias en general.
de ausencia, enfermedad o cualquier otro de que les conozco por ser las mismas personas
impedimento del accionista administrador Sr. Lim que otorgaron el preinserto documento,
Yogsing, este podra conferir poder general o ratificando ant emi su contenido y manifestando
especial al accionista que crea conveniente para ser el mismo un acto de su libre y voluntario
que en union del administrador auxiliar Sr. Vicente otorgamiento. El Sr. Santiago Jo Chung Cang me
Jocson Jo, pudieran ambos administrar exhibio su cedula personal expedida en Cebu,
convenientemente los negocios de la sociedad. Cebu, I.F. el dia 19 de septiembre de 1919 bajo el
Que los administradores podran tener los No. H77742, Go Tayco tambien me exhibio la suya
empleados necesarios para el mejor que debieran expedida en Cebu, Cebu, I.F., el dia 9 de octubre
percibir dichos empleados por servicios rendidos a de 1919 bajo el No. G2042490, Yap Gueco tambien
la sociedad. me exhibio la suya expedida en Cebu, Cebu, I.F. el
dia 20 de enero de 1919 bajo el No. F1452296, Lim
Que ambos administradores podran disponer Yogsing tambien me exhibio la suya expedida en
de mil discientos pesos (P1,200) moneda filipina, Cebu, Cebu, I.F., el dia 26 de febrero de 1919
anualmente, para sus gastos particulares, siendo bajo el No. F1455662, y Ho Seng Sian
dicha cantidad de P1,200 la que corresponde a representante de Jo Ybec, me exhibio su cedula
cada uno de dichos administradores, como personal expedida en Cebu, Cebu, I.f. el dia 4 de
emolumentos o salarios que se les asigna a cas febrero de 1919 bajo el No. F1453733.
uno, por sus trabajos en la administracion de la
sociedad. Entendiendose, que, los accionistas Ante mi,
podran disponer cada fin de añola gratificacion
quese concedera a cada administrador, si los
negocios del año fueran boyantes y justifiquen la (Fdo.) "F.V.ARIAS
concesion de una gratificacion especial, aparte del "Notario Publico
salario aqui dispuesto y especificado. "Hasta el 1.º de enero de 1920
To establish a limited partnership there must be, at least, instrument, which shall be presented for record in the
one general partner and the name of the least one of the mercantile registry. Article 120, next following, provides
general partners must appear in the firm name. (Code of that the persons in charge of the management of the
Commerce, arts. 122 [2], 146, 148.) But neither of these association who violate the provisions of the foregoing
requirements have been fulfilled. The general rule is, that article shall be responsible in solidum to the persons not
those who seek to avail themselves of the protection of members of the association with whom they may have
laws permitting the creation of limited partnerships must transacted business in the name of the association. Applied
show a substantially full compliance with such laws. A to the facts before us, it would seem that Teck Seing &
limited partnership that has not complied with the law of Co., Ltd. has fulfilled the provisions of article 119.
its creation is not considered a limited partnership at all, Moreover, to permit the creditors only to look to the
but a general partnership in which all the members are person in charge of the management of the association, the
liable. (Mechem, Elements of Partnership, p. 412; Gilmore, partner Lim Yogsing, would not prove very helpful to them.
Partnership, pp. 499, 595; 20 R C. L. 1064.)
What is said in article 126 of the Code of Commerce
The contention of the creditors and appellants is that the relating to the general copartnership transacting business
partnership contract established a general partnership. under the name of all its members or of several of them or
of one only, is wisely included in our commercial law. It
Article 125 of the Code of Commerce provides that the would appear, however, that this provision was inserted
articles of general copartnership must estate the names, more for the protection of the creditors than of the
surnames, and domiciles of the partners; the firm name; partners themselves. A distinction could well be drawn
the names, and surnames of the partners to whom the between the right of the alleged partnership to institute
management of the firm and the use of its signature is action when failing to live up to the provisions of the law,
instrusted; the capital which each partner contributes in or even the rights of the partners as among themselves,
cash, credits, or property, stating the value given the latter and the right of a third person to hold responsible a general
or the basis on which their appraisement is to be made; the copartnership which merely lacks a legal firm name in
duration of the copartnership; and the amounts which, in a order to make it a partnership de jure.
proper case, are to be given to each managing partner
annually for his private expenses, while the succeeding The civil law and the common law alike seem to point to a
article of the Code provides that the general copartnership difference between the rights of the partners who have
must transact business under the name of all its members, failed to comply with the law and the rights of third
of several of them, or of one only. Turning to the document persons who have dealt with the partnership.
before us, it will be noted that all of the requirements of
the Code have been met, with the sole exception of that The supreme court of Spain has repeatedly held that
relating to the composition of the firm name. We leave notwithstanding the obligation of the members to register
consideration of this phase of the case for later discussion. the articles of association in the commercial registry,
agreements containing all the essential requisites are valid
The remaining possibility is the revised contention of as between the contracting parties, whatever the form
counsel for the petitioners to the effect that Teck Seing & adopted, and that, while the failure to register in the
Co., Ltd., is "una sociedad mercantil "de facto" commercial registry necessarily precludes the members
solamente" (only a de facto commercial association), and from enforcing rights acquired by them against third
that the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Hung- persons, such failure cannot prejudice the rights of third
Man-Yoc vs. Kieng-Chiong-Seng [1906], 6 Phil., 498), is persons. (See decisions of December 6, 1887, January 25,
controlling. It was this argument which convinced the trial 1888, November 10, 1890, and January 26, 1900.) The same
judge, who gave effect to his understanding of the case reasoning would be applicable to the less formal requisite
last cited and which here must be given serious attention. pertaining to the firm name.
The decision in Hung-Man-Yoc vs. Kieng-Chiong- The common law is to the same effect. The State of
Seng, supra, discloses that the firm Kieng-Chiong-Seng was Michigan had a statute prohibiting the transaction of
not organized by means of any public document; that the business under an assumed name or any other than the real
partnership had not been recorded in the mercantile name of the individual conducting the same, unless such
registry; and that Kieng-Chiong-Seng was not proven to be person shall file with the county clerk a certificate setting
the firm name, but rather the designation of the forth the name under which the business is to be conducted
partnership. The conclusion then was, that the partnership and the real name of each of the partners, with their
in question was merely de facto and that, therefore, giving residences and post-office addresses, and making a
effect to the provisions of article 120 of the Code of violation thereof a misdemeanor. The supreme Court of
Commerce, the right of action was against the persons in Michigan said:
charge of the management of the association.
The one object of the act is manifestly to protect
Laying the facts of the case of Hung-Man-Yoc vs. Kieng- the public against imposition and fraud,
Chiong-Seng, supra, side by side with the facts before us, a prohibiting persons from concealing their identity
marked difference is at once disclosed. In the cited case, by doing business under an assumed name, making
the organization of the partnership was not evidenced by it unlawful to use other than their real names in
any public document; here, it is by a public document. In transacting business without a public record of
the cited case, the partnership naturally could not present who they are, available for use in courts, and to
a public instrument for record in the mercantile registry; punish those who violate the prohibition. The
here, the contract of partnership has been duly registered. object of this act is not limited to facilitating the
But the two cases are similar in that the firm name failed collection of debts, or the protection of those
to include the name of any of the partners. giving credit to persons doing business under an
assumed name. It is not unilateral in its
We come then to the ultimate question, which is, whether application. It applies to debtor and creditor,
we should follow the decision in Hung-Man-Yoc vs. Kieng- contractor and contractee, alike. Parties doing
Chiong-Seng, supra, or whether we should differentiate the business with those acting under an assumed
two cases, holding Teck Seing & Co., Ltd., a general name, whether they buy or sell, have a right,
copartnership, notwithstanding the failure of the firm under the law, to know who they are, and who to
name to include the name of one of the partners. Let us hold responsible, in case the question of damages
now notice this decisive point in the case. for failure to perform or breach of warranty should
arise.
Article 119 of the Code of Commerce requires every
commercial association before beginning its business to The general rule is well settled that, where
state its article, agreements, and conditions in a public statutes enacted to protect the public against
18
Articles 127 and 237 of the Code of Commerce make all the
members of the general copartnership 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. Section 51 of the Insolvency Law, likewise,
makes all the property of the partnership and also all the
separate property of each of the partners liable. In other
words, if a firm be insolvent, but one or more partners
thereof are solvent, the creditors may proceed both against
the firm and against the solvent partner or partners, first
exhausting the assets of the firm before seizing the
property of the partners. (Brandenburg of Bankcruptcy,
sec. 108; De los Reyes vs. Lukban and Borja [1916], 35
Phil., 757; Involuntary Insolvency of Campos Rueda &
Co. vs. Pacific Commercial Co. [1922], 44 Phil., 916).