1 | Page

38. PNB vs LO
FACTS
Appellants Severo Eugenio Lo and Ng Khey Ling, together with J.
A. Say Lian Ping, Ko Tiao Hun, On Yem Ke Lam and Co Sieng Peng
formed a commercial partnership under the name of "Tai Sing and
Co.," with a capital of P40,000 contributed by said partners. Say
Lian Ping was appointed general manager of the partnership. Tsai
Sing and Co., general partnership, made several mortgages the
partnership personal property to plaintiff bank where they failed
to pay. PNB demanded the payment with interest but Eugenio Lo,
manager, denied to pay contending that it was not a general
partnership and the credits were not authorized by the board of
directors.
ISSUE
w/n it is a general partnership
HELD
It is a general partnership. The partners are to pay the credit
severally. Therefore, the defendants cannot invoke in their
defense the anomaly in the firm name which they themselves
adopted.
RATIO
The object of article 126 of the Code of Commerce in requiring a
general partnership to transact business under the name of all
its members, of several of them, or of one only, is to protect
the public from imposition and fraud; and that the provision of
said article 126 is for the protection of the creditors rather
than of the partners themselves.
39. PITCO vs YULO
FACTS
Florencio Yulo and Jaime Palacios were partners in operating a
sugar estate in Negros, selling their crops to Dy-Sianco. Pedro
Yulo, father of Florencio, took over. The Palacios went
abroad.Dy-Sianco claimed the balance of Yulo P1,683 where
judgement ruled Yulo to pay the entire amount.
HELD
Yulo is to pay only one-half. The liability is pro rata even if
the other partner had left the country.

2 | Page

40. ISLAND SALES vs UNITED PIONEERS

FACTS
Defendant company, a general partnership, executed a promissory
note to purchase a motor vehicle in 12 installments conditioned
that failure to pay one would render the whole balance
immediately due and demandable.
Company failed to pay one installment so the appellee sued for
the balance. One of the case of the partners was defauled so the
lower court made the four other partners liable solidary for the
whole amount.
ISSUE
w/n the four partners are liable pro rata
HELD
Each partners are liable only for 1/5 of the balance. Though the
case of one of the partner was dismissed, he is still a general
partner. The dismissed complaint against him only condoned his
individual share to the balance.
44. LIWANAG VS WORKMEN"S COMPENSATION COMM
FACTS
Petitioners are co-owners of Liwanag Auto Supply where their
security guard was killed by a criminal. The Workmen Comp Comm
ruled them solidarily liable to compensate the heirs of their
employee. They contend that nothing in the Act expresses
solidarity in compensation.
ISSUE
w/n partners are liable solidarily
HELD
They are liable solidarily. Though nothing in the Act states so,
the Civil Code provides other provisions that provide for
solidarity in cases of employers and employees.

3 | Page

48. Yu vs NLRC
FACTS
Petitioner Benjamin Yu, Assitant Manager of the marble quarrying
business Jade Mountain Products Company Limited, operated the
company with half his salary since the owners would pay after
securing additional funds . The owners of the company sold it to
Willy Co and Zapanta, the new owner, who terminated Yu's
employment without paying unpaid salaries. Yu sued for illegal
dismissal.
ISSUE
1. w/n a new partnership was formed
w/n Yu should be paid by the new partnership
HELD
1. The acquisition of 82% of the partnership interest by new
partners, coupled with the retirement or withdrawal of the
partners who had originally owned such 82% interest, was enough
to constitute a new partnership. The new partners simply tookover
the business.
2. Yu should be paid since his work is valude-added to the
business, they can choose not to retain him. No illegal
dismissal.
49. Bearneza vs. Dequilla
FACTS
The parties formed a particular partnership to exploit a fish
pond in Iloilo. Perpetua contributed money to the business until
head death. She made a will assigning her rights to Domingo, here
petitioner. Petitioner demanded the delivery of half the part of
the fish pond, where Dequilla refused. He then filed an action to
recover one-half of the fishpond and the profits.
ISSUE
w/n Domingo Bearneza had right to one-half
HELD
The death of Perpetua dissolved the partnership. Only the rights
inherited were those resulting from the liquidation of the
deceased partner. Those made before it is impossible to be
determined.