Balangue, Allen John C.

1.
a Yes, Clark may engage in his said separate businesses. Clark is the capitalist in
the partnership that’s why he is allowed to operate another business. According
to Article 1789 The prohibition of Capitalist partners is not absolute unless the
business of the capitalist partner is same as the business of the partnership.
b. No. Bruce can not engage to another businesses or to form another business
since his contribution to the partnership is his skills. As what stated in the article
1789 An industrial partner cannot engage in business for himself, unless the
partnership expressly permits him to do so. There is no permission from the capitalist
which is Clark that’s why he has no right.
2
A. Yes. A should be hired as secretary. By a unanimous vote of the partners, W
and X were appointed managing partners. 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.
B. Yes. B should be hired as Accountant. The managing partners were appointed
without any specification of their respective powers and duties. As stated by
article 1801 If two or more partners have been intrusted with the management
of the partnership without specification of their respective duties, or without
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 tie, the matter shall be decided by the partners owning Powers of two (2)
or more managing partners.
3. No. Ina can not demand that Y deliver the portrait she had paid. X passed
away without being able to do it. Even if she was dealing to the business
establishment and not the artist, the one who will do portrait died it means in the
partnership no one is able to do it. In line with the Article 1830 Dissolution is caused
by the death of the partner. Which is X passed away.
4
A Yes. The partnership is liable to W. In agreement with Article 1833 If a partner
enters into a new contract with 3rd person after dissolution, the new contract
generally will bind the partners and each of them is liable for his share of any
liability created by the acting partner as if the partnership has not been dissolved.
The 3rd person here is W.
B. No. X and Z is not liable to Y for their share of the liability. The partnership is
expired under Artivle 1834 Nothing in this article shall affect the liability under
Article 1825 of any person who, after dissolution, represents himself or consents to
another representing him as a partner in a partnership engaged in carrying
business.
5.
A Yes. Partnership is liable to W. According to Article 1776 Partnership with a fixed
term – is one which the term of its existence has been agreed upon expressly (as
when there is a definite period) or impliedly, (as when a particular enterprise or
transaction is undertaken).

B. Y and Z have the same shares even though the partnership is expired under
Article 1834 Nothing in this article shall affect the liability under Article 1825 of any
person who, after dissolution, represents himself or consents to another
representing him as a partner in a partnership engaged in carrying business.
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 The dissolution done by Pat and Pris without the consent of
Pau or Phil is valid. According to Article 1830 Pris and Pau 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. Phil doesn’t have any right to petition for the dissolution of the
partnership before the expiration of its specified term. According to Article 1813
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.
8
D is correct because according to Article 1816 A 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.
9
a. Yes. the first partnership (between Francis and Leo) dissolved with the coming
of Norman. As what is stated in Article 1784 “A partnership begins from the
moment of the execution of the contract, unless it is otherwise stipulated” , They
executed their own Articles of Partnership when they availed services of Norman.
9b. Yes Leo is liable to the damages. Conforming to Article 1835 “The dissolution
of the partnership does not of itself discharge the existing liability of any partner”
Leo cause damages to the partnership because he abandoned the GBC
partnership and entering into other partnership which is the KAPA