Duterte v Rallos

(2 P 509)
Facts:
Duterte
(plaintiff-
appellant)
claimed that
Rallos
(defendant), and
one Castro
were partners in
the mana ement
of a coc!pit" #ow
ever,
Rallos denied sai
d claim" $he cour
tfound that no
such partnership
e%isted
and ordered
&ud ment in
favor with
Rallos"'t is
undisputed that
the plaintiff
rendered
services in the
mana ement of
the coc!pit,and
that the
defendant paid
him mone on
account of the
coc!pit"Rallos,
after den in
that the plaintiff
was his partner,
testified that the
profits
weredivided"
portion of which
was iven to
two friends,
Duterte and
Castro, *ut not
as partners"
portion was i
ven to Duterte so
lel *ecause he w
as a friend who a
ided andencoura
ed the coc!pit
and had no dut
to perform,
e%cept when he
had to preside at
thecoc!pit" #e
added that he
onl paid them
for his pleasure,
as friends,
Duterte had no
le alinterest"Dut
erte testified that
he made a ver*al
contract of
partnership with
the Rallos for
this *usiness, unc
ontradicted evid
ence that he perf
ormed services i
n connection wit
h it+ thatRallos
paid him the
mone on
account thereof
and sent him
accounts for
three
monthsshowin
his interest to *e
one-third of the
profits in
addition to the
5 each da ,
andwrote him a
letter in which
he said that he
admitted the
Duterte into the
partnership
inorder to
collect what
Duterte owed
him on another
transaction" $he
lower court
foundthat no
such partnership
e%isted and
ordered
&ud ment for
the defendant"
$he
plaintiff moved
for a new trial,
which
was denied"
Issue:
hether or not
Duterte and
Rallos entered
into a contract of
partnership"
Held:
.es, Duterte
and Rallos
entered into
a contract of
partnership"$he
/C have
e%amined the
evidence and are
of the opinion
that the findin
of thelower
court as to the
e%istence of the
copartnership is
manifestl
a ainst the
evidence"$he
Court see no
other wa of
e%plainin the
accounts
su*mitted * the
defendant to
the plaintiff"
$he evidence (let
ters
and testimonies)
presented clearl
showed than th
at therewas a
partnership
*etween them
up" $hat there
was an
a reement to
share the profits
isclearl proved
* the accounts
su*mitted" $he
plaintiff testified
that the profits
and losseswere
to *e shared
e uall " 1ut
even omittin
this testimon ,
the case is
covered *
article 349 of
the Civil Code,
which provides
that, in the
a*sence of
a reement as to
the losses,the
shall *e shared
as the ains are"
rticle 334 of
the Civil Code is
not applica*le
tothe case" o
real estate was
contri*uted *
an mem*er"
$he partnership
did not
*ecomethe
owner of the
coc!pit" 't is
undisputed that
this was owned
* the defendant
and thatthe
partnership paid
him ten dollars a
da for the use
of it" $he findin
of fact * the
court *elow, that
there was no par
tnership, at least
to /eptem*er ,
90 , was plainl
andmanifestl
a ainst the
evidence, and for
that reason a
new trial of this
case must *e
had"
#6