LI

WANAGv
.CA

G.
R.No.114398;
Oct
ober24,
1997

Ponent
e:J.Romer
o

FACTS:

Petit
ionerCarmenLi wanagandacer tai
nThel maTabl iganwentt othe
houseofcompl ai
nantIsidoraRosales(Rosal es)andaskedhert oj oint
hem
i
nthebusi nessofbuy ingandsel l
ingcigarettes.Convincedoft hef easi
bil
i
ty
ofthev enture,
Rosalesreadilyagreed.Undert heiragreement ,Rosales
wouldgi vethemoneyneededt obuyt heci garett
eswhi leLiwanagand
Tabli
ganwoul dactasheragent s,withacor r
esponding40%commi ssi
onto
herifthegoodsar esold;otherwisethemoneywoul dber eturnedto
Rosales.Consequent l
y,Rosalesgav esever alcashadv ancest oLiwanag
andTabl i
ganamount i
ngt oP633,650.00

Alar
medt hatLiwanagwasnolongervisi
ti
ngherregar
dingt
heirbusi
ness
andbeliev
ingthattheamount
ssheadv ancedwerebeingmisappr
opri
ated,
Rosalesfi
ledacaseofestaf
aagainstLiwanag.

Li
wanagadv ancesthetheoryt hattheintentionofthepartieswast oenter
i
ntoacont r
actofpart
nership,wher ei
nRosal eswouldcont ri
butethefunds
whil
eshewoul dbuyandsel lthecigarettes,andlaterdiv
idet heprofi
ts
betweenthem.Sheal soarguest hatthet ransact
ioncanal sobe
i
nterpr
etedasasimpleloan, withRosal eslendingtohertheamountst ated
onaninstal
lmentbasis. RTCf oundLi wanaggui l
tyforthecr i
meof
est
afa.TheCourtofAppealsaf f
ir
medt hel owercour t
’sdecision
I
SSUE:

WhetherLiwanagcanbeacquit
tedf
rom t
hecr
imeofest
afabecause
sheandRosalesfor
medapartnershi
p

HELD:

No,
Liwanagcoul
dnotbeacqui
tt
edf
rom t
hecr
imeofest
afa.

TheSupr emeCourtheldt
hatEstafaisacri
mecommi tt
edbyaperson
whodefraudsanothercausi
nghimtosuf f
erdamages,bymeansof
unf
ait
hfulnessorabuseofconf
idence,oroffal
sepr
etensesorf
raudul
ent
act
s.

I
nthecaseathand,evenassumingthatacontractofpar t
nershipwas
i
ndeedenteredintobyandbetweentheparti
es,wehav eruledthatwhen
moneyorpr oper
tyhavebeenrecei
vedbyapar t
nerforaspeci fi
cpurpose
(suchasthatobtai
ningi
ntheinst
antcase)andhelatermi sappropri
atedi
t,
suchpart
nerisguilt
yofest
afa.

Or
tegav
s.CA

FACTS:
OnDecember19, 1980, r
espondentMi saassoci atedhimsel ftoget her,as
seniorpar tnerwi t
hpet i
ti
onersOrtega, del Cast il
l
o, Jr.
,andBacor ro,as
j
uniorpar tner s.OnFeb.17, 1988,respondentMi sawr oteal etterstat i
ng
thathei swi thdrawingandr eti
ri
ngf r
om t hef irm andaski ngf orameet i
ng
withthepet it
ionerstodiscussthemechani csoft heli
quidation.OnJune30,
1988, peti
tionerf i
ledapet i
ti
ontot heCommi sion'sSecurit
iesI nvest i
gati
on
andCl earingDepar t
mentf ortheformal dissol utionandl i
quidat i
onoft he
partnership.OnMar ch31, 1989,thehear i
ngof fi
cerrenderedadeci si
on
rul
ingt hatt hewi t
hdrawalofthepet i
tionerhasnotdi ssolvedt he
partnership.Onappeal ,t
heSECenbancr ever sedt hedecisionandwas
affi
rmedbyt heCour tofAppeals.Hence, t hispet it
ion.

I
SSUE:

WhetherornottheCour tofAppeal
shaserredinholdi
ngthatthe
par
tnershi
pisapartnershipatwil
landwhetherornottheCourtofAppeal
s
haserr
edinholdingthatthewithdr
awalofpri
vaterespondentdi
ssol
vedthe
par
tnershi
pregardl
essofhi sgoodorbadfait
h

HELD:

No.TheSCuphel dtheruli
ngoft heCAr egardingthenat ureoft he
partnership.TheSCf urt
herst atedthatapar tnershi
pt hatdoesnotf i
xit
s
termi sapar tner
shipatwill
.Thebi rthandl i
feofapar t
nershipatwi ll
is
predicatedont hemut ualdesireandconsentoft hepar tners.Therightto
choosewi thwhom aper sonwi shest oassoci at
ehimsel fisthev ery
foundat i
onandessenceoft hatpar t
nership.Itscontinuedexi st
encei s,
in
turn,dependentont heconst ancyoft hatmut ualresolve,alongwi t
heach
partner'
scapabi l
it
ytogi v
eit,andt heabsenceofacausef ordissolut
ion
providedbythelawitself
.Ver i
l
y,anyoneoft hepartner
smay ,athi
ssole
pleasure,di
ctat
eadi ssol
utionofthepar tner
shipatwil
l
.Hemust ,however
,
actingoodf ait
h,notthattheattendanceofbadf ai
thcanpreventthe
dissolut
ionofthepar t
nershipbutthatitcanresul
tinali
abi
l
ityfordamages.

USv
s.Rey
es

G.
R.No.79253,
Mar
ch1,
1993

FACTS: Nel i
aT.Mont oya,anAmer icanci t
izenempl oy edasan
i
dent i
fi
cationcheckeratt heU. S.Nav yExchange( NEX)att heJoi ntUnited
StatesMi l
itaryAssi st
anceGr oup( JUSMAG)headquar t
ersinQuezonCi t
y,
fi
ledacompl ai
ntagai nstMaxi neBr adford, al
soanAmer i
cancitizen
wor ki
ngasamanageratJUSMAGHeadquar ter’sactivi
tyexchange, f
or
damagesduet otheoppr essiveanddi scri
mi natoryact scommi tt edbyt he
l
at t
erinexcessofheraut horityasst oremanageroft heNEXJUSMAG.Thi s
wasduet ot heincidentonJanuar y22, 1987whenBr adfordsear ched
Mont oya’sbodyandbel ongingswhi l
et helatterwasal r
eadyi nthepar king
areaafterbuy i
ngsomei temsNEXJUSMAG’ sretailstore,whereshehad
purchasingpr i
vil
eges.Tosuppor tthemot ion, t
hepet iti
onersclaimedt hat
checkingofpur chasesi sar outinepr ocedur eobserv edatbaser etai
l
outlet
st opr otectandsaf eguar dmer chandise,cash, andequi pment
pursuantt opar agraphs2and4( b)ofNAVRESALEACTSUBI CINST.5500. 1.
7.Therefore, Bradford’sordert ocheckal lempl oyeepur chaseswasdonei n
theexerciseofherdut i
esasManageroft heNEX- JUSMAG.
I
SSUE:
Whet
herornotBr
adf
ordenj
oysdi
plomat
ici
mmuni
ty.

HELD: No.UnderAr t.16(b)oft he1953Mi l

it
aryAssistanceAgr eement
creati
ngt heJUSMAG, “onlytheChi efoft heMi l
i
taryAdv i
serGr oupandnot
mor ethansi xotherseni ormember st hereofdesignatedunderbyhi m wil
l
beaccor deddi pl
omat icimmuni t
y”.Thecour tal
sor ul
edt hatArt.31oft he
ViennaConv enti
ononDi plomat i
cRel ati
onspr ovi
dedanexcept ion;stat
ing
thatevendi plomaticagent swhoenj oyi mmuni t
yar eli
ableiftheyper f
orm
anyprofessi onalorcommer ci
alactivi
tyout si
dehi soffi
ci
al f
unct i
ons.
Therefore,sinceBradf ordwor ksasNEX- JUSMAG’ sManager ,shei snot
amongt hoseof f
icersgr anteddiplomat icimmuni ty.