Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3704)
Facts:
La Compania Maritima v. Francisco Munoz et al., G.R. No. 3704. December 12, 1907, the Supreme Court, Willard, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff, La Compania Maritima, sued the partnership Francisco Munoz & Sons and the individual partners Francisco Munoz de Bustillo, Emilio Munoz de Bustillo, and Rafael Naval in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover P28,828.30, with interest and costs. The action arose from mercantile transactions entered into by the partnership. The trial court rendered judgment acquitting Emilio Munoz de Bustillo and Rafael Naval, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff against the partnership and against Francisco Munoz de Bustillo for P26,828.30 with interest (8% per annum from March 31, 1905) and costs. The plaintiff appealed.
The facts relevant to partnership formation: on March 31, 1905 the three defendants executed articles creating an "ordinary, general mercantile partnership" called Francisco Munoz & Sons to carry on the mercantile business formerly conducted by Francisco Munoz in Albay. Francisco was the capitalist partner; Emilio and Rafael were described as industrial partners. The articles of partnership were recorded in the mercantile registry and contained a clause (paragraph 12) allocating three-fourths of profits to Francisco, and one-eighth each to Emilio and Rafael, and providing that, on liquidation at the end of five years, losses would be for the "sole and exclusive account" of the capitalist partner.
At trial the court below questioned whether the partnership was truly an "ordinary, general mercantile partnership" and concluded that Emil...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- In a regular, ordinary general mercantile partnership, does the designation "industrial partner" exclude that partner from personal liability to third persons for partnership debts?
- Were the trial court's judgments as to liability erroneous and should judgment be rendered against all defendants, with execution against private property deferred until partnership assets are exhausted?
- May an action be maintained simultaneously against the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)