Title
Martinez vs. Ong Pong Co.
Case
G.R. No. 5236
Decision Date
Jan 10, 1910
Pedro Martinez invested P1,500 in a store managed by Ong Pong Co and Ong Lay. After no accounting or proof of losses, Martinez sued for refund. Court ruled Ong Pong Co liable for half the capital with interest.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 5236)

Facts:

Pedro Martinez v. Ong Pong Co and Ong Lay, G.R. No. 5236, January 10, 1910, the Supreme Court En Banc, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.

On December 12, 1900, plaintiff Pedro Martinez delivered P1,500 to defendants Ong Pong Co and Ong Lay under a private agreement that the money would be invested in a store and that profits or losses would be divided equally. The plaintiff later filed suit on April 25, 1907, seeking either an accounting of the partnership operations or the refund of the P1,500.

Only Ong Pong Co appeared and admitted the receipt of the money and the terms of the agreement, but alleged that Ong Lay (then deceased) had managed the business and that the enterprise had resulted in the loss of the capital, a loss to which the plaintiff had purportedly agreed. The Court of First Instance of the City of Manila found for the plaintiff and ordered Ong Pong Co to return one-half of the capital, P750, plus P90 as one-half of the profits (calculated at 12% per annum for six months), for a total of P840, with legal interest at 6% per annum from June 12, 1901 (the date the business allegedly terminated), and costs.

Ong Pong Co appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors that (1) the trial court failed to consider that the store was closed by ejectment; (2) it ignored alleged losses; (3) it improperly held there should have been profits; (4) it erroneously applied Article 1138 of the Civil Code; and (5) it imp...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Does the fact that the store was closed by ejectment absolve the defendants from the obligation to render an accounting or to refund the capital advanced?
  • Was there proof that the capital (or any part thereof) was lost so as to excuse refunding the plaintiff?
  • May presumed profits be awarded and reasonably estimated at 12% per annum for six months in the absence of proof of the amount?
  • Are the defendants jointly liable for return of the contributed capital and what is the...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.