Case Digest (G.R. No. 10695)
Facts:
Teodoro De Los Reyes v. Vicente Lukban and Espiridion Borja, G.R. No. 10695, December 15, 1916, the Supreme Court En Banc, Torres, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee, Teodoro De Los Reyes, owned a ship-supply store and sold merchandise on credit in October–November 1904 to the partnership Lukban & Borja. On July 15, 1905 (trial), judgment was rendered on October 19, 1905 (Case No. 3759) against the partnership for P1,086.65 plus interest and costs. Subsequently partner Espiridion Borja paid P522.69 on account, leaving a principal balance of P610.21.On August 19, 1913 the creditor sued the partnership again (Case No. 10908) to recover what he then computed as P853 (including interest), but Judge Del Rosario dismissed that complaint on November 20, 1913. Thereafter, on December 5, 1913, De Los Reyes filed the present suit (Case No. 11296) against the former partners Vicente Lukban (appellant) and Espiridion Borja (co-defendant) personally, seeking P894.17 as the unpaid balance plus interest and costs; the complaint alleged individual liability of the partners after dissolution and ineffective collection from partnership assets.
At trial the defendants answered: Borja pleaded general and specific denial and res judicata and prescription; Lukban denied the allegations and pleaded (1) that Case No. 10908 had acquitted the partnership; (2) that he was merely an industrial (non-capital) partner; (3) that the partnership assets had not been exhausted (no attachment), making the action premature; and (4) prescription as to him. The parties stipulated key facts (partnership formation and dissolution, prior judgments, payments made, and that the partnership had no known property). The Court of First Instance rendered judgment on November 25, 1914, ordering both defendants jointly and severally to pay P610.20 with interest from December 17, 1913. Lukban excepted, filed a motion for new trial which was denied December 10, 1914, and appealed. Borja did not appeal, so the judgment became final as to him.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Lukban assigned four errors: (1) action improper because partnership assets had not been attached/exhausted before suing partners; (2) plaintiff failed to prove liability agains...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the action against Vicente Lukban improper for failure to exhaust partnership assets or to levy attachment on partnership property before suing the partners individually?
- Did the plaintiff prove liability against the appellant so as to sustain a joint and several judgment?
- Is the present action barred by res judicata because of the prior dismissal of plaintiff’s suit against the partnership (Case No. 10908)?
- Has the plaintiff’s cause ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)