Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3351)
Facts:
- The case involves a dispute between the plaintiffs, Ang Seng Quen and others, and the defendants, Juan Te Chico and others.
- The plaintiffs and Ang Bang Guan signed articles of partnership for a commercial business in Manila under the name of Hoc Jua Bee & Company.
- The articles of partnership were never recorded in the mercantile registry, meaning that the company never became a juridical person.
- The defendants, doing business under the firm name of Sam Jop Jim & Company, were alleged to owe the plaintiffs a sum of money for merchandise purchased.
- The defendants denied the allegations and claimed that the plaintiffs had suppressed evidence by concealing the books of account.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled that a judgment for the defendants cannot be sustained based on the alleged suppression of evidence by the plaintiffs.
- The court ruled that the omission of Ang B...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court found that the defendants' claim of suppression of evidence by the plaintiffs was not supp...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3351)
Facts:
The case of Ang Seng Quen v. Te Chico involves a dispute between the plaintiffs, Ang Seng Quen and others, and the defendants, Juan Te Chico and others. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant company owed them a sum of money. During the trial, it was proven that one of the plaintiffs, Ang Bang Gui, was responsible for the payment of the debt but was not named as a defendant in the case.
Issue:
The main issues raised in the case are whether the omission of Ang Bang Gui as a defendant was material and whether the alleged suppression of evidence by the plaintiffs affected the judgment.
Ruling:
The court ruled that the omission of Ang Bang Gui as a defendant was immaterial as long as he was before the court, and that the judgment rendered in the case would bind him. The court also found that the alleged suppression of evidence was not sufficient to support a judgment for the defenda...