MICHAEL C. GUY vs. ATTY. GLENN C.

GACOTT

G.R. No. 206147 January 13, 2016

Facts:

Atty. Glenn Gacott from Palawan purchased two (2) brand new transreceivers from
Quantech Systems Corporation (QSC) in Manila through its employee Rey Medestomas. Due to
major defects, Gacott personally returned the transreceivers to QSC and requested that they be
replaced. Medestomas received the returned transreceivers and promised to send him the
replacement units within two (2) weeks. However, Gacott did not receive the replacement units
as promised and was informed by QSC that there were no available units and that it could not
refund the purchased price. Gacott was never given a replacement or a refund, despite his several
demands. The demands cause him to incur expenses. Thus, he filed a complaint for damages.

During the execution, he learned that the Quantech Systems Corporation (QSC) is not a
corporation but rather a general partnership registered with the Security Exchange and
Commission, with Guy as the appointed general manager of the partnership. Sheriff Felizarte
verified whether Medestomas, QSC, and Guy had personal properties registered with the
Department of Transportation and Communications, Land Transportation Office in Quezon City.
Upon learning that Guy had vehicles registered in his name, Gacott instructed the sheriff to
proceed with the attachment of one of Guy’s motor vehicles. Thereafter, 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. Gacott filed an opposition to the motion.

The RTC and CA denied Guy’s motion for lack of merit. It was stated that he is solidarily
liable for all the debts, liabilities, and damages because he is a general partner.

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

Rulings: No.

The Court states that a partner must be separately and distinctly impleaded before he can
be bound by a judgment. Although a partnership is based on delectus personae or mutual agency,
whereby any partner can generally represent the partnership in its business affairs, it is non
sequitur that a suit against the partnership is necessarily a suit impleading each and every
partner. It must be remembered that a partnership is a juridical entity that has a distinct and
separate personality from the persons composing it. The Court added that the partners could not
be held liable for the obligations of the partnership unless it was shown that the legal fiction of a
different juridical personality was being used for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal purposes.

In the case, it was not shown that Guy or the other partners did a wrongful act or misapplied the
money or property he or the partnership received from Gacott. Thus, it was improper to hold Guy
solidarily liable for the obligation of the partnership