Ortega had made a letter saying he would be retiring from the firm of Lozada, Misa & Bito.

He was
requesting for the liquidation of his asset particularly the two floors of their building. The hearing Officer
decided that Atty. Misa’s withdrawal from the firm had dissolved the partnership. For the reason that no
partner shall be forced to continue a partnership if it is against their will.

On this case Article 1830 is mentioned it was the Dissolution caused. In this case the said partnership is a
partnership at will so it’s rightfully correct that the Atty. Misa had caused the dissolve of the partnership
due to the reason she doesn’t want to continue the partnership.

According to byjus.com they explained that the mutual agency is a legal relationship of partners saying
that the both of the partners has the authority powers and ability for the partnership to enter a business
contracts.

https://byjus.com/question-answer/explain-the-concept-of-mutual-agency-in-partnership-with-a-
suitable-example/ here’s the link Sir !

in Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng Lay the ruling was no partnership therefore it cannot be dissolve. There are
process in forming a partnership ranging from article 1767 to 1772. the reason of the partnership to be
void is also stated in Article 1773 to 1774.

Corporation’ s can’t enter a partnership. They can’t engage a partnership with any other entity or
individual but if Articles of incorporation has authorized a partnership the it’s permissible.

False, for the partners have obligations in a partnership. In article losses and profits must be distributed
equally according to the agreement