Case Digest (G.R. No. 25007)
Facts:
Pacific Commercial Company v. Aboitiz & Martinez et al., G.R. No. 25007. March 02, 1926, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ostrand, J., writing for the Court. In April 1919 Arnaldo F. de Silva, Guillermo Aboitiz, Vidal Aboitiz and Jose Martinez formed “a regular, collective, mercantile partnership” with a capital of P40,000, of which the Aboitiz partners and De Silva furnished the capital. Jose Martinez was designated an industrial partner who furnished no capital; the partnership articles provided that he would receive 30% of the profits and that his responsibility for losses “should not exceed the amount of the profits received by him.”On April 27, 1922, the partnership, through its authorized representative Guillermo Aboitiz, executed a promissory note in favor of Pacific Commercial Company for P23,168.71 with 12% interest per annum and 10% as attorney’s fees if collection required judicial proceedings. As security the partnership executed a chattel mortgage over described personal property. For failure to pay, the mortgage was foreclosed and the mortgaged property sold; P2,000 of the proceeds was paid to plaintiff on December 28, 1923. No further payments appear.
On January 4, 1924 the plaintiff sued to recover the unpaid balance with interest. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff against the partnership for P27,951.68, awarded interest and collection fees per the note, and ordered execution to issue first against partnership property, then (if partnership insolvent) against De Silva and Aboitiz, and, if they were insolvent, then against industrial partner Jose Mar...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under the Code of Commerce, can an industrial partner be held personally liable to third‑party creditors for partnership debt...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)