Fernando Santos vs Spouses Reyes

on July 19, 2012

Business Organization Partnership, Agency, Trust Shares in Liquidation Net Profit vs Gross Income
In June 1986, Fernando Santos (70%), Nieves Reyes (15%), and Melton Zabat (15%) orally instituted a partnership with them as partners. Their venture is to set up a lending business where it was agreed that Santos shall be financier and that Nieves and Zabat shall contribute their industry. **The percentages after their names denote their share in the profit. Later, Nieves introduced Cesar Gragera to Santos. Gragera was the chairman of a corporation. It was agreed that the partnership shall provide loans to the employees of Grageras corporation and Gragera shall earn commission from loan payments.

In August 1986, the three partners put into writing their verbal agreement to form the partnership. As earlier agreed, Santos shall finance and Nieves shall do the daily cash flow more particularly from their dealings with Gragera, Zabat on the other hand shall be a loan investigator. But then later, Nieves and Santos found out that Zabat was engaged in another lending business which competes with their partnership hence Zabat was expelled.

The two continued with the partnership and they took with them Nieves husband, Arsenio, who became their loan investigator.

Later, Santos accused the spouses of not remitting Grageras commissions to the latter. He sued them for collection of sum of money. The spouses countered that Santos merely filed the complaint because he did not want the spouses to get their shares in the profits. Santos argued that the spouses, insofar as the dealing with Gragera is concerned, are merely his employees. Santos alleged that there is a distinct partnership between him and Gragera which is separate from the partnership formed between him, Zabat and Nieves.

The trial court as well as the Court of Appeals ruled against Santos and ordered the latter to pay the shares of the spouses.

ISSUE: Whether or not the spouses are partners. HELD: Yes. Though it is true that the original partnership between Zabat, Santos and Nieves was terminated when Zabat was expelled, the said partnership was however considered continued when Nieves and Santos continued engaging as usual in the lending business even getting Nieves husband, who resigned from the Asian Development Bank, to be their loan investigator who, in effect, substituted Zabat. There is no separate partnership between Santos and Gragera. The latter being merely a commission agent of the partnership. This is even though the partnership was formalized shortly after Gragera met with Santos (Note that Nieves was even the one who introduced Gragera to Santos exactly for the purpose of setting up a lending agreement between the corporation and the partnership).

HOWEVER, the order of the Court of Appeals directing Santos to give the spouses their shares in the profit is premature. The accounting made by the trial court is based on the total income of the partnership. Such total income calculated by the trial court did not consider the expenses sustained by the partnership. All expenses incurred by the money-lending enterprise of the parties must first be deducted from the total income in order to arrive at the net profit of t he partnership. The share of each one of them should be based on this net profit and not from the gross income or total income.

Heirs of Tan Eng Kee vs Court of Appeals

on June 30, 2012

Business Organization Partnership, Agency, Trust Periodic Accounting Profit Sharing

Benguet Lumber has been around even before World War II but during the war, its stocks were confiscated by the Japanese. After the war, the brothers Tan Eng Lay and Tan Eng Kee pooled their resources in order to revive the business. In 1981, Tan Eng Lay caused the conversion of Benguet Lumber into a corporation called Benguet Lumber and Hardware Company, with him and his family as the incorporators. In 1983, Tan Eng Kee died. Thereafter, the heirs of Tan Eng Kee demanded for an accounting and the liquidation of the partnership.

Tan Eng Lay denied that there was a partnership between him and his brother. He said that Tan Eng Kee was merely an employee of Benguet Lumber. He showed evidence consisting of Tan Eng Kees payroll; his SSS as an employee and Benguet Lumber being the employee. As a result of the presentation of said evidence, the heirs of Tan Eng Kee filed a criminal case against Tan Eng Lay for allegedly fabricating those evidence. Said criminal case was however dismissed for lack of evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not Tan Eng Kee is a partner. HELD: No. There was no certificate of partnership between the brothers. The heirs were not able to show what was the agreement between the brothers as to the sharing of profits. All they presented were circumstantial evidence which in no way proved partnership. It is obvious that there was no partnership whatsoever. Except for a firm name, there was no firm account, no firm letterheads submitted as evidence, no certificate of partnership, no agreement as to profits and losses, and no time fixed for the duration of the partnership. There was even no attempt to submit an accounting corresponding to the period after the war until Kees death in 1984. It had no business book, no written account nor any memorandum for that matter and no license mentioning the existence of a partnership.

In fact, Tan Eng Lay was able to show evidence that Benguet Lumber is a sole proprietorship. He registered the same as such in 1954; that Kee was just an employee based on the latters payroll and SSS coverage, and other records indic ating Tan Eng Lay as the proprietor.

Also, the business definitely amounted to more P3,000.00 hence if there was a partnership, it should have been made in a public instrument.

But the business was started after the war (1945) prior to the publication of the New Civil Code in 1950?
Even so, nothing prevented the parties from complying with this requirement.

Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that for 40 years, Tan Eng Kee never asked for an accounting. The essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses. Each has the right to demand an accounting as long as the partnership exists. Even if it can be speculated that a scenario wherein if excellent relations exist among the partners at the start of the bus iness and all the partners are more interested in seeing the firm grow rather than get immediate returns, a deferment of sharing in the profits is perfectly plausible. But in the situation in the case at bar, the deferment, if any, had gone on too long to be plausible . A person is presumed to take ordinary care of his concerns. A demand for periodic accounting is evidence of a partnership which Kee never did.

The Supreme Court also noted:

In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply:

(1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons;

(2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property;

(3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property which the returns are derived;

(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment:

(a) As a debt by installment or otherwise;

(b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord;

(c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner;

(d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business;

(e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise.

Tocao and Belo vs Court of Appeals and Anay

on July 8, 2012

Business Organization Partnership, Agency, Trust Dissolution of the Partnership

William Belo introduced Nenita Anay to his girlfriend, Marjorie Tocao. The three agreed to form a joint venture for the sale of cooking wares. Belo was to contribute P2.5 million; Tocao also contributed some cash and she shall also act as president and general manager; and Anay shall be in charge of marketing. Belo and Tocao specifically asked Anay because of her experience and connections as a marketer. They agreed further that Anay shall receive the following:

1. 2. 3. 4.

10% share of annual net profits 6% overriding commission for weekly sales 30% of sales Anay will make herself 2% share for her demo services

They operated under the name Geminesse Enterprise, this name was however registered as a sole proprietorship with the Bureau of Domestic Trade under Tocao. The joint venture agreement was not reduced to writing because Anay trusted Belos assurances.

The venture succeeded under Anays marketing prowess.

But then the relationship between Anay and Tocao soured. One day, Tocao advised one of the branch managers that Anay was no longer a part of the company. Anay then demanded that the company be audited and her shares be given to her.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a partnership. HELD: Yes, even though it was not reduced to writing, for a partnership can be instituted in any form. The fact that it was registered as a sole proprietorship is of no moment for such registration was only for the companys trade name. Anay was not even an employee because when they ventured into the agreement, they explicitly agreed to profit sharing this is even though Anay was receiving commissions because this is only incidental to her efforts as a head marketer.

The Supreme Court also noted that a partner who is excluded wrongfully from a partnership is an innocent partner. Hence, the guilty partner must give him his due upon the dissolution of the partnership as well as damages or share in the profits realized from the appropriation of the partnership business and goodwill. An innocent partner thus possesses pecuniary interest in e very existing contract that was incomplete and in the trade name of the co-partnership and assets at the time he was wrongfully expelled.

An unjustified dissolution by a partner can subject him to action for damages because by the mutual agency that arises in a partnership, the doctrine of delectus personae allows the partners to have the power, although not necessarily the right to dissolve the partnership. Tocaos unilateral exclusion of Anay from the partnership is shown by her memo to the Cubao office plainly stating that Anay was, as of October 9, 1987, no longer the vice-president for sales of Geminesse Enterprise. By that memo, petitioner Tocao effected her own withdrawal from the partnership and considered herself as having ceased to be associated with the partnership in the carrying on of the business. Nevertheless, the partnership was not terminated thereby; it continues until the winding up of the business.

Nielson & Co. Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. Case Digest
Nielson & Co. Inc. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. [GR L-21601, 28 December 1968]

Facts: [GR L-21601, 17 December 1966; Zaldivar (J): 6 concur, 2 took no part] An operating agreement was executed before World War II (on 30 January 1937) between Nielson & Co. Inc. and the Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. whereby the former operated and managed the mining properties owned by the latter for a management fee of P2,500.00 a month and a 10% participation in the net profits resulting from the operation of the mining properties, for a period of 5 years. In 1940, a dispute arose regarding the computation of the 10% share of Nielson in the profits. The Board of Directors of Lepanto, realizing that the mechanics of the contract was unfair to Nielson, authorized its President to enter into an agreement with Nielson modifying the pertinent provision of the contract effective 1 January 1940 in such a way that Nielson shall receive (1) 10% of the dividends declared and paid, when and as paid, during the period of the contract and at the end of each year, (2) 10% of any depletion reserve that may be set up, and (3) 10% of any amount expended during the year out of surplus earnings for capital account. In the latter part of 1941, the parties agreed to renew the contract for another period of 5 years, but in the meantime, the Pacific War broke out in December 1941. In January 1942 operation of the mining properties was disrupted on account of the war. In February 1942, the mill, power plant, supplies on hand, equipment, concentrates on hand and mines, were destroyed upon orders of the United States Army, to prevent their utilization by the invading Japanese Army.

The Japanese forces thereafter occupied the mining properties, operated the mines during the continuance of the war, and who were ousted from the mining properties only in August 1945. After the mining properties were liberated

from the Japanese forces, LEPANTO took possession thereof and embarked in rebuilding and reconstructing the mines and mill; setting up new organization; clearing the mill site; repairing the mines; erecting staff quarters and bodegas and repairing existing structures; installing new machinery and equipment; repairing roads and maintaining the same; salvaging equipment and storing the same within the bodegas; doing police work necessary to take care of the materials and equipment recovered; repairing and renewing the water system; and retimbering. The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the mine and mill was not completed until 1948. On 26 June 1948 the mines resumed operation under the exclusive management of LEPANTO. Shortly after the mines were liberated from the Japanese invaders in 1945, a disagreement arose between NIELSON and LEPANTO over the status of the operating contract which as renewed expired in 1947. Under the terms thereof, the management contract shall remain in suspense in case fortuitous event or force majeure, such as war or civil commotion, adversely affects the work of mining and milling. On 6 February 1958, NIELSON brought an action against LEPANTO before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover certain sums of money representing damages allegedly suffered by the former in view of the refusal of the latter to comply with the terms of a management contract entered into between them on 30 January 1937, including attorney's fees and costs. LEPANTO in its answer denied the material allegations of the complaint and set up certain special defenses, among them, prescription and laches, as bars against the institution of the action.

After trial, the court a quo rendered a decision dismissing the complaint with costs. The court stated that it did not find sufficient evidence to establish LEPANTO's counterclaim and so it likewise dismissed the same. NIELSON appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and enter in lieu thereof another, ordering Lepanto to pay Nielson (1) 10% share of cash dividends of December, 1941 in the amount of P17,500.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (2) management fee for January, 1942 in the amount of P2,500.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (3) management fees for the sixty-month period of extension of the management contract, amounting to P150,000.00, with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint; (4) 10% share in the cash dividends during the period of extension of the management contract, amounting to P1,400,000.00, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (5) 10% of the depletion reserve set up during the period of extension, amounting to P53,928.88, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (6) 10% of the expenses for capital account during the period of extension, amounting to P694,364.76, with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint; (7) to issue and deliver to Nielson and Co. Inc. shares of stock of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. at par value equivalent to the total of Nielson's 10% share in the stock dividends declared on November 28, 1949 and August 22, 1950, together with all cash and stock dividends, if any, as may have been declared and issued subsequent to November 28, 1949 and August 22, 1950, as fruits that accrued to said shares; provided that if sufficient shares of stock of Lepanto's are not available to satisfy this judgment, Lepanto shall pay Nielson an amount in cash equivalent to the market value of said shares at the time of default, that is, all shares of stock that should have been delivered to Nielson before the filing of the complaint must be paid at their market value as of the date of the filing of the complaint; and all shares, if any, that should have been delivered after the filing of the complaint at the market value of the shares at the time Lepanto disposed of all its available shares, for it is only then that Lepanto placed itself in condition of not being able to perform its obligation; (8) the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (9) the costs.

Lepanto seeks the reconsideration of the decision rendered on 17 December 1966.

Issue: Whether the management contract is a contract of agency or a contract of lease of services.

Held: Article 1709 of the Old Civil Code, defining contract of agency, provides that "By the contract of agency, one person binds himself to render some service or do something for the account or at the request of another." Article 1544, defining contract of lease of service, provides that "In a lease of work or services, one of the parties binds himself to make or construct something or to render a service to the other for a price certain." In both agency and

lease of services one of the parties binds himself to render some service to the other party. Agency, however, is distinguished from lease of work or services in that the basis of agency is representation, while in the lease of work or services the basis is employment. The lessor of services does not represent his employer, while the agent represents his principal. Further, agency is a preparatory contract, as agency "does not stop with the agency because the purpose is to enter into other contracts." The most characteristic feature of an agency relationship is the agent's power to bring about business relations between his principal and third persons. "The agent is destined to execute juridical acts (creation, modification or extinction of relations with third parties). Lease of services contemplate only material (non-juridical) acts." Herein, the principal and paramount undertaking of Nielson under the management contract was the operation and development of the mine and the operation of the mill. All the other undertakings mentioned in the contract are necessary or incidental to the principal undertaking these other undertakings being dependent upon the work on the development of the mine and the operation of the mill. In the performance of this principal undertaking Nielson was not in any way executing juridical acts for Lepanto, destined to create, modify or extinguish business relations between Lepanto and third persons. In other words, in performing its principal undertaking Nielson was not acting as an agent of Lepanto, in the sense that the term agent is interpreted under the law of agency, but as one who was performing material acts for an employer, for a compensation. It is true that the management contract provides that Nielson would also act as purchasing agent of supplies and enter into contracts regarding the sale of mineral, but the contract also provides that Nielson could not make any purchase, or sell the minerals, without the prior approval of Lepanto. It is clear, therefore, that even in these cases Nielson could not execute juridical acts which would bind Lepanto without first securing the approval of Lepanto. Nielson, then, was to act only as an intermediary, not as an agent. Further, from the statements in the annual report for 1936, and from the provision of paragraph XI of the Management contract, that the employment by Lepanto of Nielson to operate and manage its mines was principally in consideration of the know-how and technical services that Nielson offered Lepanto. The contract thus entered into pursuant to the offer made by Nielson and accepted by Lepanto was a "detailed operating contract". It was not a contract of agency. Nowhere in the record is it shown that Lepanto considered Nielson as its agent and that Lepanto terminated the management contract because it had lost its trust and confidence in Nielson.

JAI ALAI V. BPI

66 SCRA 29 FACTS:
Checks were deposited by petitioner in its current account with the bank. These checks were from a certain Ramirez, a consistent better in its games, who was a sales agent from Inter-Island Gas. Inter-Island later found out that of the forgeries committed in the checks and thus, it informed all the parties concerned. Upon the demands on the bank as the collecting bank, it debited the account of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner tried to issue a check for payment of shares of stock but such was dishonored for insufficient funds. It filed a complaint against the bank.

HELD:
Respondent bank acted within legal bounds when it debited the account of petitioner. When the petitioner deposited the checks to its account, the relationship created was one of agency still and not of creditor-debtor. The bank was to collect from the drawees of the checks with the corresponding proceeds.

The Bank may have the proceeds already when it debited the account of petitioner. Nonetheless, there is still no creditor-debtor relationship. Following Section 23, a forged signature is wholly inoperative and no right to discharge it or enforce its payment can be acquired through or under the forged signature except against a party who cannot invoke its forgery or want of authority. It stands to reason that as a collecting bank which

indorsed the checks to the drawee-banks for clearing, should be liable to the latter for reimbursement for the indorsements on the checks had been forged prior to their delivery to the petitioner. The payments made by the drawee banks to respondent were ineffectivethe creditor-debtor relationship hadnt been validly effected.

Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware 38 Phil 501 August 1918

FACTS:

On January 24, 1911, plaintiff Andres Quiroga and J. Parsons (to whose rights and obligations the present defendant Parsons Hardware Co. later subrogated itself) entered into a contract, where it was stated among others that Quiroga grants in favor of Parsons the exclusive rights to sell his beds in the Visayan Islands under some conditions. One of the said conditions provided that Mr. Parsons may sell, or establish branches of his agency for the sale of "Quiroga" beds in all the towns of the Archipelago where there are no exclusive agents, and shall immediately report such action to Mr. Quiroga for his approval while another one passed on to Parsons the obligation to order by the dozen and in no other manner the beds from Quiroga.

Alleging that the Parsons was his agent for the sale of his beds in Iloilo, Quiroga filed a complaint against the former for violating the following obligations implied in what he contended to be a contract of commercial agency: not to sell the beds at higher

prices than those of the invoices; to have an open establishment in Iloilo; itself to conduct the agency; to keep the beds on public exhibition, and to pay for the advertisement expenses for the same; and to order the beds by the dozen and in no other manner.

ISSUE:

Is the defendant, by reason of the contract, a purchaser or an agent of the plaintiff for the sale of the latters beds in Il oilo?

COURT

RULING:

The Supreme Court declared that the contract by and between the plaintiff and the defendant was one of purchase and sale, and that the obligations the breach of which is alleged as a cause of action are not imposed upon the defendant, either by agreement or by law.

In order to classify a contract, due regard must be given to its essential clauses. In the contract in question, what was essential, as constituting its cause and subject matter, is that the plaintiff was to furnish the defendant with the beds which the latter might order, at the price stipulated, and that the defendant was to pay the price in the manner stipulated. There was the obligation on the part of the plaintiff to supply the beds, and, on the part of the defendant, to pay their price. These features exclude the legal conception of an agency or order to sell whereby the mandatory or agent received the thing to sell it, and does not pay its price, but delivers to the principal the price he obtains from the sale of the thing to a third person, and if he does not succeed in selling it, he returns it.

Lim vs People
Posted on November 20, 2012

Lim vs People G.R. No. 130038 Sep.18, 2000

INTRO The case is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto that of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City. Both courts found petitioner Rosa Lim guilty of twice violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and imposing on her two one-year imprisonment for each of the two violations and ordered her to pay two fines, each amounting to P200,000.00. The trial court also ordered petitioner to return to Maria Antonia Seguan, the jewelry received or its value with interest, to pay moral damages, attorneys fees and costs. FACTS On August 25, 1990, petitioner bought various kinds of jewelry worth P300,000.00 from Maria Antonia Seguan. She wrote out a check with the same amount, dated August 25, 1990, payable to cash drawn on Metrobank and gave the check to Seguan. The next day, petitioner again went to Seguans store and purchased jewelry valued at P241,668.00. Petitioner issued another check payable to cash dated August 16, 1990 drawn on Metrobank in the amount of P241,668.007 and sent the check to Seguan through a certain Aurelia Nadera. Seguan deposited the two checks with her bank. The checks were returned with a notice of dishonor. Petitioners account in the bank from which the checks were drawn was closed. Upon demand, petitioner promised to pay Seguan the amounts of the two dishonored checks, but she never did. On June 5, 1991, an Assistant City Prosecutor of Cebu filed with the RTC, Cebu City, Branch 23, two informations against petitioner for violations of BP No. 22. After due trial, on December 29, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision in the two cases convicting petitioner. Petitioner appealed to the CA, but the same was dismissed by the CA in its October 15, 1996 Decision wherein it affirmed in toto the RTCs Decision. ISSUE WON Lim violated B.P. No. 22. HELD The elements of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) The making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon

its presentment; and (3) The subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. The gravamen of B.P. No. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or one that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment. And the accused failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make arrangement for its payment within 5 banking days from notice of dishonor. The act is malum prohibitum, pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Laws are created to achieve a goal intended and to guide and prevent against an evil or mischief. Why and to whom the check was issued, and the terms & conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks, are irrelevant in determining culpability. Under BP No. 22, one need not prove that the check was issued in payment of an obligation, or that there was damage. It was ruled in United States v. Go Chico, that in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When dealing with acts mala prohibita it is not necessary that the appellant should have acted with criminal intent. In many crimes, the intention of the person who commits the crime is entirely immaterial This case is a perfect example of an act mala prohibita. The first and last elements of the offense are admittedly present. B.P. No. 22, Section 2 creates a presumption juris tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense are present. If not rebutted, it suffices to sustain a conviction. To escape liability, she must prove that the second element was absent. Petitioner failed to rebut this presumption and she failed to pay the amount of the checks or make arrangement for its payment within 5 banking days from receipt of notice of dishonor. B.P. No. 22 was clearly violated. Hoc quidem per quam durum est sed ita lex scripta est. The law may be exceedingly hard but so the law is written. However, the penalty imposed on petitioner must be modified. In Vaca v. Court of Appeals[298 SCRA 658 (1998)], it was held that in determining the penalty to be imposed for violation of B.P. No. 22, the philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies. The philosophy is to redeem valuable human material, and to prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. The prison sentence imposed on petitioners is deleted, and imposed on them

only a fine double the amount of the check issued. Consequently, the prison sentences imposed on petitioner are deleted. The two fines imposed for each violation, each amounting to P200,000.00 are appropriate and sufficient. The award of moral damages and order to pay attorneys fees are deleted for lack of sufficient basis.