Title
Island Sales, Inc. vs. Daco
Case
G.R. No. L-22493
Decision Date
Jul 31, 1975
A partnership's default on a vehicle installment led to a lawsuit; partners' liability was ruled pro rata, unaffected by one partner's dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-22493)

Applicable Law

The pertinent law to this case is derived from the Civil Code, specifically Article 1816, which governs the liability of partners in a partnership. This provision states the obligations of partners concerning debts incurred by the partnership, emphasizing their joint and several liabilities.

Background of the Case

On April 22, 1961, United Pioneers General Construction Company executed a promissory note for ₱9,440 to purchase a motor vehicle on an installment basis, with the obligation that each of the twelve payments, including penalties for late payments, would render the entire unpaid balance due if missed. After a default occurred following the failure to pay the installment due on July 22, 1961, Island Sales, Inc. initiated a lawsuit for the recovery of the outstanding balance of ₱7,119.07.

Procedural History

In the proceedings, co-defendant Daniel A. Guizona did not respond to the lawsuit and was declared in default. The plaintiff subsequently motioned for the dismissal of the complaint with respect to another co-defendant, Romulo B. Lumauig. During the scheduled hearing, the defendants, including Benjamin C. Daco and Noel C. Sim, failed to appear, leading to a trial where evidence was presented by the plaintiff ex parte.

Trial Court's Decision

The trial court ruled in favor of Island Sales, Inc., ordering the defendant construction company to pay the plaintiff the outstanding amount plus interest and attorney's fees. However, the court specified that the individual defendants' liability would be contingent upon whether the company had leviable properties.

Arguments on Appeal

In the appeal, Benjamin C. Daco and Noel C. Sim contended that, given the five general partners, the liability of each partner should only be one-fifth of the company’s obligation. They argued that dismissing the complaint against Lumauig should proportionately reduce their liabilities as remaining partners. However, the trial court denied their motion for reconsideration despite the plaintiff’s consent to limit their liability to one-fifth of the debt.

Legal Issue

The central issue for determination was whether the dismissal of the complaint against one general partner would increase the joint and several liabilities of the other remaining partners.

Judicial Analysis

Citing Article 1816 of the Civil Code, the court highlighted that all partners are liable for partnership debts pro rata. The court affirmed that the total liability for the company’s obligation remains distributed among the partners. Therefore, regardless of the dismissal of the complaint against Lumauig, the liability of Benjamin C. Daco remains limited to one-fifth of the tota

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.