Thursday, October 25, 2018

Pacific Commercial vs Aboitiz GR No. 25007, March 2, 1925


Pacific Commercial vs Aboitiz GR No. 25007, March 2, 1925

ACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY vs. ABOITIZ & MARTINEZ, ET AL., 48 Phil. 841. G.R. No. L-25007, March 2, 1926

 FACTS:
 Arnaldo F. de Silva, Guillermo Aboitiz, Vidal Aboitiz and Jose Martinez formed a regular, collective, mercantile partnership with a capital of P40,000 as contributed equally by de Silva and the two Aboitiz while Jose Martinez was an industrial partner with no capital contribution. As provided in the article of partnership, Martinez was to receive 30% of the profits and shall also be responsible for losses which should not exceed 30%.

The partnership, through Guillermo Aboitiz, executed a promissory note in favor of Pacific Commercial Company in the sum of P23,168.71 with interest at 12% per annum. They executed a chattel mortgage to secure the note. Due to their failure to pay their obligation, the chattel mortgage was foreclosed and sold at P2,000 which was paid over to plaintiff Pacific Co. Due to non payment of the remaining balance, plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of unpaid balance with interest against the partnership.

A judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and the partnership was ordered to pay the sum of P27,951.68 and the interest amounting to P21,168.71 at 10% per annum until fully paid plus fees. The judgment further provided that the execution should first issue against the property of the partnership Aboitiz & Martinez and in the event of the insolvency of the partnership, it might issue against the property of de Silva and Aboitiz and in the event of insolvency, then against the property of Jose Martinez. Defendant Martinez appealed to the decision and invoked that under Art.141 of the Code of Commerce, he is merely an industrial partner, thus, he cannot be held liable for the partnership's debt.

ISSUE:
 Is an industrial partner liable for partnership's debt?

RULING
 Yes. The language of Art. 127 of the Code of Commerce is clear and specific and must be taken to mean exactly what it says, namely, that all the members of a general co partnership are liable with all their property for the results of the duly authorized transactions made in the name and for the account of the partnership. Defendant's reliance to Art. 141 is misplaced. This article of the Code of Commerce relates merely to the distribution of losses among partners themselves in the settlement of the partnership affairs and has no obligations to third parties.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Republic vs Pasig Rizal

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PASIG RIZAL CO., INC. [ G.R. No. 213207. February 15, 2022 ] EN BANC Petitioner : Republic of the Philippine...

Popular