Charene Julianne Grimaldo

1.
a. Yes. Clark may open and operated a coffee shop as he is a capitalist partner and the
business is different with the business of the partnership. The prohibition of Capitalist partners is
not absolute unless the business of the capitalist partner is same as the business of the
partnership. Explained in Article 1789.
b. No. Bruce must not open a business for himself regardless his business is as same as
the business of the partnership. According to Article 1789. An industrial partner cannot engage
in business for himself, unless the partnership expressly permits him to do so; and if he should do
so, the capitalist partners may either exclude him from the firm or avail themselves of the
benefits which he may have obtained in violation of this provision, with a right to damages in
either case. (n)

2.
a. Yes. Because W and X are the Managing partners and they did not act in bad faith.
According to ARTICLE 1800 “The partner who has been appointed manager in the articles of
partnership may execute all acts of administration despite the opposition of his partners, unless
he should act in bad faith; and his power is irrevocable without just or lawful cause. The vote of
the partners representing the controlling interest shall be necessary for such revocation of power.
A power granted after the partnership has been constituted may be revoked at any time”
b. Yes. Because the managing partners were appointed without any specification of their
respective powers and duties. According to ARTICLE 1801 “If two or more partners have been
intrusted with the management of the partnership without specification of their respective duties,
or without a stipulation that one of them shall not act without the consent of all the others, each
one may separately execute all acts of administration, but if any of them should oppose the acts
of the others, the decision of the majority shall prevail. In case of a tie, the matter shall be
decided by the partners owning the controlling interest(1693a)”

3.
Answer: No. Ina cannot demand Y to deliver the portrait because the death of X has the effect of
dissolving the partnership. And X was the one who is liable in doing the portrait, however,
because of his death, there is an impossibility to do the obligation. By the death of any partner is
includes in dissolution of Partnership according to Article 1830.

4.
 a. Yes because Y had only notice and not knowledge of dissolution
b. No, because X and Z are only liable for their share in the liability of the partnership
and not to Y.

5.

6.
Partnership Assets P320,000
Less: Partnership Liability P (150,000)
Less: Advances by X P (20,000)
Less: Cap. Contribution P (30,000 x 3)
Profit P60,000
Divide by 3
Share of each partner in the profits 20,000

7.
a. Yes. Because Under Article 1830, Pat and Pris did not violate the contract of the
partnership as they did not need the consent of Pau because she already assigned her interest to
Phil. Also, Under Article 1813, Pat and Pris did not need the consent of Phil because the interest
that Pau transferred to him does not make him partner.
b. No. Because Pauline does only assign to Phil her interest but that does not mean that
Phil have a right to petition for the dissolution of the partnership because he has no standing in
the partnership. A conveyance by a partner of his whole interest in the partnership does not of
itself dissolve the partnership said under Article 1813.

8.
D is correct because A is still liable for the debt as he is general partner. Debts and
obligations of the partnerships are also the debts and obligations of each partner. And
Dissolution of a partnership caused by the termination of the undertaking specified in the
agreement does not extinguish obligations. This is explained in Article 1816.

9.
 a. Yes, because when they availed services of Norman, they executed their own Articles
of Partnership regardless it is under the same firm name with same purpose as according to
Article 1784 “A partnership begins from the moment of the execution of the contract, unless it is
otherwise stipulated”
b. Yes. Leo cause damages to the partnership because he abandoned the GBC partnership
and entering into other partnership which is the KAPA. According to Article 1835 “The
dissolution of the partnership does not of itself discharge the existing liability of any partner”