Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
In 1985, Eddie Alarilla and Irma Idos formed a partnership which they decided to
terminate after a year. To pay Alarillas share of the asset, Idos issued 4 post
dated checks. Alarilla was able to encash the first, second and fourth checks but
the third was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. He demanded payment but
Idos failed to pay. She claimed that the checks were issued as assurance of
Alarillas share in the assets of the partnership and that it was supposed to be
deposited until the stocks were sold. He filed an information for violation of BP
blg. 22 against Idos in which she was found guilty by the trial court.
Issue: Did the court confused and merged into one the legal concepts of
dissolution, liquidation and termination of a partnership?
Ruling: The partners agreement to terminate the partnership did not
automatically dissolve the partnership. They were in the process of winding-up
when the check in question was issued. The best evidence of the existence of the
partnership, which was not yet terminated were the unsold goods and
uncollected receivables which were presented to the trial court. Article 1829 of
the Civil Code provides that on dissolution the partnership is not terminated but
continues until the winding-up of partnership affairs is completed. Since the
partnership has not been terminated, Idos and Alarilla remained co-partners. The
check was issued by petitioner to respondent as would a partner to another and
not as a payment by debtor to creditor. Thus, absent the first element of the
complained offense, the act is not punishable by the statute.