Case Digest (G.R. No. L-39780)
Facts:
Elmo Munasque v. Court of Appeals, Celestino Galan, Tropical Commercial Company and Ramon Pons, G.R. No. L-39780, November 11, 1985, Supreme Court First Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition for certiorari seeks to annul the Court of Appeals' affirmation that a partnership existed between petitioner Elmo Munasque and respondent Celestino Galan, and to absolve petitioner from liability to intervening creditors.Petitioner contracted with respondent Tropical Commercial Co., Inc. for remodeling its Cebu branch under a written agreement dated December 20, 1966, signed in the name of the partnership “Galan and Munasque” as Contractor. The contract provided P25,000 in total payments: P7,000 upon signing and three installments of P6,000 every fifteen working days. The first check for P7,000, dated January 9, 1967, was made payable to Munasque, who indorsed it to Galan for deposit and payment of materials. When the second check for P6,000 fell due (January 26, 1967), Munasque refused to indorse; Tropical (through Cebu branch manager Ramon Pons) changed the payee to “Galan and Associates” and delivered the proceeds to Galan, who encashed it. Petitioner alleges Galan misused the funds and that he finished the work largely at his own expense, incurring substantial outlays and debts to suppliers.
Creditors Cebu Southern Hardware Company and Blue Diamond Glass Palace intervened, asserting unpaid claims for materials extended to the partnership. At trial the court found a partnership existed and ordered Munasque and Galan to pay jointly and severally the intervenors’ claims (later amended January 15, 1971 to add interest and P500 attorney’s fees). The trial court absolved Tropical and Pons of liability. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but modified the intervention creditors’ recovery from “jointly and severally” to “jointly.” Munasque filed the present petition for certiorari to this Court challenging (1) the finding of partnership, (2) the failure to charge Galan with malversation of the P13,000, and (3) the ruling that Tropical’s payments to Galan were “good payments.”
The Court’s final entry affirms the appellate decision with a modification ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did a partnership exist between Elmo Munasque and Celestino Galan?
- If a partnership existed, is Celestino Galan personally liable to Munasque for malversation of partnership funds?
- Was the payment made by Tropical Commercial Company to Galan a valid payment binding the partnership and not a grou...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)