Case Digest (G.R. No. 45464)
Facts:
On September 11, 1936, Josue Soncuya filed an amended complaint against Carmen de Luna, both in her personal capacity and as co-administratrix of the intestate estate of Librada Avelino, in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Soncuya sought damages amounting to P 700,432 from De Luna, alleging fraudulent management of their partnership, "Centro Escolar de Senoritas." In response, De Luna filed a demurrer, arguing that the complaint lacked sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and was ambiguous, unintelligible, and vague. The trial court upheld the demurrer, thus ordering Soncuya to amend his complaint within ten days. Soncuya opted not to amend the complaint, leading De Luna to request the dismissal of the case. The trial court granted this motion, resulting in the dismissal of Soncuya's complaint with costs against him. Soncuya appealed, citing twenty alleged errors made by the lCase Digest (G.R. No. 45464)
Facts:
- Filing of the Amended Complaint
- On September 11, 1936, plaintiff Josue Soncuya filed an amended complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- The complaint was against defendant Carmen de Luna, who was acting in her own name and as co-administratrix of the intestate estate of Librada Avelino.
- The complaint alleged that due to the alleged fraudulent administration of the partnership "Centro Escolar de Senoritas" by the defendant, the plaintiff suffered damages amounting to P700,432, in addition to costs.
- Defendant’s Demurrer and Initial Rulings
- Carmen de Luna interposed a demurrer, raising two grounds:
- The facts stated in the complaint were insufficient to constitute a cause of action.
- The complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible, and vague.
- The trial on the demurrer was held, and the lower court sustained the demurrer, finding the complaint legally defective.
- The court ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint within ten days from receipt of the order.
- Motion for Dismissal and Subsequent Appeal
- The plaintiff expressed his preference not to amend the amended complaint.
- Subsequently, the attorney for the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint with costs against the plaintiff.
- The motion was granted by the Court of First Instance of Manila, leading to the dismissal of the amended complaint with costs against the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff appealed the dismissal, asserting twenty alleged errors committed by the lower court, with his arguments primarily focused on the insufficiency of the facts and the alleged ambiguity of the complaint.
- Underlying Claim and Critical Point on Liquidation
- The complaint alleged that damages were due as a result of fraudulent administration of the partnership "Centro Escolar de Senoritas", of which the deceased Librada Avelino, the plaintiff, and the defendant were members.
- It was emphasized that to quantify damages suffered by a partner from the fraudulent management, a full liquidation of the partnership was necessary.
- The complaint neither showed evidence that such liquidation had been effected nor prayed for the liquidation, thereby undermining the basis for a claim for damages.
Issues:
- Whether the facts alleged in the amended complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action for a partner seeking to recover damages against the managing partner for fraudulent administration.
- Specifically, whether the absence of a prior liquidation of the partnership "Centro Escolar de Senoritas" invalidates the claim for damages.
- Whether the additional contention that the complaint is ambiguous, unintelligible, and vague is a proper ground for dismissal, in light of the insufficiency of the facts.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)