Obligations of Partners with Regard to Third Persons - Art.

1820

1. Tin-Congco vs. Trilana 13 Phil. 194

Facts:

Trillana the defendant, did business with the partners Ormachea and Luis Vizmanos Ong
Queco who operated a distillery business in Bulacan. He supplied the same with Tuba or coconut
wine. The said partnership was dissolved and one of the business creditors Tin-Congco alleges
that Trillana still had an outstanding balance with the same, and now seeks to recover the debt.

The defendant denies the said balance and stated if the same still existed it should be
payable in kind, in Tuba as provided under original agreement with the dissolved partnership.
The lower court favored Tin-Congco; and ordered the defendant to pay the same. Unsatisfied
with the decision, Trillana moved for reconsideration and provided a document signed by Jose R.
Lopez (Lawa) who served as the manager of the distillery as evidence. It provided that Trillanas
account with the business has already been settled.

Issue:

Is Trillanas liability to the partnership terminated based on the concurrence of its manager?

Held:

The court says no, it was found that the document provided by the defendant was dated 2
years after the dissolution of the partnership. When the partnership was dissolved in 1901, Lawa
who managed the distillery on behalf of the owners of the same also ceased to act as such in the
said year. Therefore he cannot serve to relieve the debtor from paying what he owed by virtue of
the said document. More so, it was written in Spanish and provided by Trillana himself; Lawa
was a Chinaman, and therefore understandably unfamiliar with the language.

Obligations of Partners with Regard to Third Persons - Art. 1822-1824

2. Liwanag and Reyes vs. Workmens Compensation Commission 105 Phil. 741
Facts:

Benito Liwanag and Maria Liwanag Reyes were partners in an auto supply business.
Their security guard named Balderama was killed in the line of duty, while protecting the said
establishment from criminals. The guards widow Ciriaca filed a claim with the Workmen's
Compensation Commission.

The claim was granted but the Liwanags appealed the decision, questioning the solidary
nature of their obligation under the provided act. They contended that nothing under the said act
provides that their obligation to the workers family is solidary; and in the absence of the same
their liability should be joint, and therefore divisible.

Issue:

Is the partners liability under the said law a joint, or a solidary obligation?

Held:

The court provides that their liability is solidary. It provided that generally, the liability of
the partners in a partnership should be a joint obligation. However, the said the rule cannot be
applied in the present case.

They provided that Article 1711 of the civil code provides that owners and employers are
obliged to pay compensation for the death of or injuries to their laborers. While Article 1712 also
provided that if the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow-worker, the latter and the
employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. The Workmen's Compensation Act also
declares that the right to compensation shall not be defeated or impaired on the ground that the
death, injury or disease was due to the negligence of a fellow servant or employee, without
prejudice to the right of the employer to proceed against the negligence party.

Based on the foregoing provisions, the liability of business partners should be solidary;
otherwise the right of the employee may be defeated. If their liability is joint and divisible, the
amount awarded to the worker would only be partially satisfied if one of them happens to be
insolvent. Such an interpretation would definitely defeat the intent and purposes of the said law.

Obligations of Partners with Regard to Third Persons - Art. 1825

3. Mirasol vs. Municipality of Tabaco 43 Phil. 610

Facts:

In 1916 the Municipality of Tabaco decided to build an Artesian Well in the center of its town.
Mirasol along with two other residents who owned properties in the area expressed their
willingness to donate land for the said project. The engineer in charge of its construction stated
that Mirasols property was the most suitable among the others.

However when its construction was about to begin, Mirasol apparently changed his mind and
ordered it stopped. The engineer complied and decided to go on the other available lands. Upon
learning that the Municipality decided to move on, he changed his mind again and assured the
Municipality that he had no objections over the said project. The construction went on without
further incident.

After some time Mirasol sued the Municipality for ejection, claiming that he never gave his
consent over the same. The lower court ruled in favor of the Municipality, unsatisfied with the
decision the plaintiff appealed stating that there was no valid donation of the land used for the
well.

Issue:

Is the plaintiff estopped from revoking his consent to the Municipality?

Held:

The court says yes, it was found that Mirasol declared to Santillan, the Municipal President that
executing documents for the said donation was unnecessary as he would not be likely to have
any disputes with the municipality over such a small matter. The Town did not acquire any title
or easement over the said land, but a license which is generally created by parol or implied from
acquiescence on the part of the owner of the land.

It has been held under United States decisions that once a license has been granted to a party
with the express or implied consent of the owner, and the party has expended money or labor or
improvements on the said property; the owner is estopped from revoking the license.

Article 333 of the civil code also provides that whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act,
or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to
act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission,
be permitted to falsify it.

Therefore based on the foregoing, Mirasol is estopped from pressing his claim over the said land.