ART. 1793.

A partner who has received, in whole or in part, his share of a partnership,

when the other partners have not collected theirs, shall be obliged, if the debtor should
thereafter become insolvent, to bring to the partnership capital what he received even
though he may have given receipt for his share only. (1685a)

1. Requisites for application rules:

(a) A partner has received, in whole or in part, his share of the partnership credit;

(b) The other partners have not collected their shares; and

(c) The partnership debtor has become insolvent

2. Reason for imposing obligation to return

Explanation: Sa article 1793 iisa lang ang creditor w/c is the partnership. Kapag ang debtor ay
nagdecide na magbayad sa partnership credit, ang co-partners ay may Karapatan sa binayarang
utang kasi mayroon silang ambag. Pero diba nga hindi naman maiwasan o mayroon talaga na sa
isang partnership may partner na mukhang pera o yung sakim. kaya dito nabuo ang article 1793
ay para mawala o maiwasan sa isang partnership ang mga ganung partner.

Halimbawa:

Debtors: Clouie

Co-partners: Christian, Kurt, Marvic (CKM Partnership)

Si Clouie ay may utang sa CKM Partnership ng P100,000. Ang percentage of sharing nina CKM
sa partnership ay 20 30 50. Ang share ng bawat isa don sa utang ay 20k for C 30k for K at 50k
for M. so let assume na kinulang sa pambayad si Clouie, ang hawak lang niya ay 40k. so
nagdecide siya na yung 40k na hawak niya ang ibabayad muna niya sa partnership. Pero ang
nakatanggap ng 40k ay si Marvic siya yung nag assess. Eto na malapit na tayo sa exciting part,
ang ginawa ni Marvic sa halip na hatiin sa kanila nina Christian at kurt ang pera na binayad,
crinedit niya sa 50k na share para naman mabawasan at maging 10k na lang ang marereceive
niya sa future. Ngunit si Clouie ay naging insolvent. Wala ng pambayad ng utang. So wala ng
matatanggap sina Christian at Kurt na bayad kasi crinedit ni Marvic ang 40k binayad ni Clouie.
So ayon doon papasok si Article 1793 na yung ginawa ni Marvic ay labag sa batas. So kung
bawal ang ginawa ni Marvic. Ang mangyayari ay yung 40k na binayad ni Clouie na sinolo ni
Marvic ay ibabalik sa partnership capital. Para madistribute ng fair yung 40k kina Christian Kurt
at Marvic. Ito yung tinutukoy ni Article 1793 para maiwasan ang lamangan sa pagdidistribute sa
bawat partner.

ART.1794. Every partner is responsible to the partnership for damages suffered by it

through his fault, and he cannot compensate them with the profits and benefits which he
may have earned for the partnership by his industry. However, the courts may equitably
lessen this responsibility if through the partner’s extraordinary efforts in other activities of
the partnership, unusual profits have been realized. (1686a)

Damages not generally subject to set-off - As a general rule, the damages caused by a partner to
the partnership cannot be offset by the profits or benefits which he may have earned for the
partnership by his industry.

Exception -If unusual profits are realized through the extraordinary efforts of the partner at fault,
the courts may equitably mitigate or lessen his liability for damages. This rule rests on equity.
Note that even in this case, the partner at fault is not allowed to compensate such damages with
the profits earned. The law does not specify as to when profits may be considered “unusual.” The
question depends upon the circumstances of the particular case.

Explanation: just connect this article 1794 sa isang relasyon diba hindi ka naman papasok sa
isang relasyon para masaktan ka or para makasakit ka kasi naniniwala ka na magwowork ang
relasyon nyo at magtatagal until the end. Just like in partnership… ginawa ang partnership to
earn profit at para hindi magbayad ng damages caused by the partner. Hindi kayo nagtayo ng
business para magbayad ng damages. So ang nilalaman ni article 1794 ay may dalawang bahagi
ang una ay ang general ng na kung saan if ever na si partner ay may ginawang something na
naging dahilang ng damages sa partnership, hindi niya pwedeng i-set-off ang liability niya for
damages sa kikitain sa partnership. Ang pangalawang pangungusap ay tumutukoy sa exemption
sa general rule ng article 1794 na if unusual profits are realized through the extraordinary efforts
of the partner at fault, the courts may equitably mitigate or lessen his liability for damages. This
basis rule on equity. Diba hindi naman pwedeng tanggalin agad si partner dahil lang sa
pagkakamali. Hindi naman pwedeng matakluban ang mga effort dahil lang sa isang kapabayaan,
lets give always a second chance to prove na pwede natin itama ang pagkakamali natin sa past.

Halimbawa:

Christian accidentally caused the fire in the CKM warehouse. Because of that, yung caterings ng
client nila this coming month ay nacancel. Lets assumed na 1M ang loss nila kasama na yung
nasirang warehouse at kikitain sana sa catering clients.

Dahil sa nangyari naghanap ng way si Christian para kumita ng Malaki ang partnership para
makabawi. He worked overnight, advertising the CKM restaurant. Ginamit nya rin ang
koneksyon to network the business. Naghire siya ng mga kilalang artista like Julia Baretto,
Joshua Garcia, Liza Soberano at Enrique Gil. Gumamit siya ng radio at televesion para i-
advertise ang kanilang business, then after a few months Nabawi ng partnership ang loss na 1M.

Yon, there is possibility that the courts may reduce the amount of responsibility that Christian
has to pay if he has made extra ordinary efforts to the partnership, w/c had led to unusual efforts.
Sa kasong ito pwedeng bawasan ng korte ang responsibilidad for the loss and damages he
caused.