AGENCY TRUST AND PARTNERSHIP | ROJAS VS. MAGLANA, 192 SCRA 110, DECEMBER 10, 1990
ROJAS VS. MAGLANA,
192 SCRA 110, DECEMBER 10, 1990
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Withdrawing partner is liable for
damages if the cause of withdrawal is not justified or no cause was given but
in no case can he be compelled to be in the firm.
FACTS
On January 14, 1955, Maglana and Rojas executed their Articles of
Co-Partnership (Exhibit "A") called Eastcoast Development Enterprises
(EDE) with only the two of them as partners. One of the purposes of the
duly-registered partnership was to "apply or secure timber and/or minor
forests products licenses and concessions over public and/or private forest
lands and to operate, develop and promote such forests rights and concessions."
During the period from January 14, 1955 to April 30, 1956, there
was no operation of said partnership. Because of the difficulties
encountered, Rojas and Maglana decided to avail of the services of Pahamotang
as industrial partner.
Later on, Maglana and Rojas shall purchase the interest, share and
participation in the Partnership of Pahamotang. After the withdrawal of
Pahamotang, the partnership was continued by Maglana and Rojas without the
benefit of any written agreement or reconstitution of their written Articles of
Partnership.
On January 28, 1957, Rojas entered into a management contract with
another logging enterprise, the CMS Estate, Inc. He left and abandoned the partnership.
On February 4, 1957, Rojas withdrew his equipment from the partnership for use
in the newly acquired area. The equipment withdrawn were his supposed
contributions to the first partnership and was transferred to CMS Estate, Inc.
by way of chattel mortgage.
On March 17, 1957, Maglana wrote Rojas reminding the latter of his
obligation to contribute, either in cash or in equipment, to the capital
investments of the partnership as well as his obligation to perform his duties
as logging superintendent. Rojas told Maglana that lie will not be able to
comply with the promised contributions and be will not work as logging
superintendent.
Meanwhile, Rojas took funds
from the partnership more than his contribution. Thus, in a letter dated
February 21, 1961 (Exhibit "10") Maglana notified Rojas that he
dissolved the partnership.
ISSUE
Whether or not Maglana can unilaterally dissolve the partnership
in the case at bar.
RULING
Yes.
The
court ruled that under Article 1830, par. 2 of the Civil Code, even if there is
a specified term, one partner can cause its dissolution by expressly
withdrawing even before the expiration of the period, with or without
justifiable cause. Of course, if the cause is not justified or no cause was
given, the withdrawing partner is liable for damages but in no case can he be
compelled to remain in the firm. With his withdrawal, the number of members is
decreased, hence, the dissolution. And in whatever way we may view the
situation, the conclusion is inevitable that Rojas and Maglana shall be guided
in the liquidation of the partnership by the provisions of its duly registered
Articles of Co-Partnership; that is, all profits and losses of the partnership
shall be divided "share and share alike" between the partners.
As
to whether Maglana is liable for damages because of such withdrawal, it will be
recalled that after the withdrawal of Pahamotang, Rojas entered into a
management contract with another logging enterprise, the CMS Estate, Inc., a
company engaged in the same business as the partnership. He withdrew his
equipment, refused to contribute either in cash or in equipment to the capital
investment and to perform his duties as logging superintendent, as stipulated
in their partnership agreement. The records also show that Rojas not only
abandoned the partnership but also took funds in an amount more than his
contribution. In the given situation Maglana cannot be said to be in bad faith
nor can he be liable for damages.