SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 206147, January 13, 2016

MICHAEL C. GUY, Petitioner, v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, Respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:

Atty. Gacott from Palawan purchased two (2) brand new transreceivers from Quantech Systems
Corporation (QSC) in Manila through its employee Rey Medestomas. After some time, he returned it due
to major defects. But time passed, he was not able to get the replacement units and he was informed
that there were no available units and he cannot refund the purchase price. He filed a complaint for
damages. But during execution, he learned that QSC was not a corporation but, a general partnership
with Mr. Guy as a partner and its general manager. Because of that, Gacott instructed the sheriff to
proceed with the attachment of one of the motor vehicles of Guy. After that, Guy filed a Motion to lift
Attachment Upon Personalty arguing that he was not a judgment debtor and, therefore, his vehicle
could not be attached buut it has been denied by the RTC and CA stating that he is solidarily liable to the
liability of the partnership since he is the general manager.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Guy is solidarily liable with the partnership for damages arising from the breach of
contract of sale with Gacott.

RULING:

The Supreme Court stated that a partner must be separately and distinctly impleaded before he can be
bound by a judgment. It is not conclusive that a suit against a partnership will also be a suit impleading
each partner unless it was shown that the legal fiction of a different juridical personality was being used
for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal purposes. Since a partnership has a separate legal personality from the
partners, the partners' obligation with respect to partnership liabilities is joint and subsidiary in nature
which means all partners shall be liable pro rata with all their property and partners shall only be liable
with their property after the partnership assets have been exhausted.

Therefore, since Guy did not act maliciously, he and his personal properties cannot be made directly and
solely accountable for the liability of QSC and that he was not the judgment debtor in the case before
the RTC, with that, his levied vehicle was released.