(a) All the rights specified in the first paragraph of this Guidote called several witnesses and introduced a so-
article, and
called accounting and a mass of documentary
(b) The right, as against each partner who has caused evidence consisting of books, bills, and alleged
the dissolution wrongfully, to damages for breach of the vouchers, which documentary evidence was so
agreement. hopelessly and inextricably confused that the court, as
stated in its decision, could not consider it of much
(2) The partners who have not caused the dissolution probative value. However, the court ordered the Borja
wrongfully, if they all desire to continue the business in be absolved from the action and to render an account
the same name either by themselves or jointly with
others, may do so, during the agreed term for the thereof to the administratrix of Santos's estate since
partnership and for that purpose may possess the Guidote failed to liquidate the affairs of the partnership.
partnership property, provided they secure the
payment by bond approved by the court, or pay to any Borja presented an account and liquidation prepared
partner who has caused the dissolution wrongfully, the by a public accountant, Santiago A. Lindaya, showing
value of his interest in the partnership at the a balance of P26,020.89 in her favor. To contradict the
dissolution, less any damages recoverable under the conclusions of Lindaya and Santiago, Guidote
second paragraph, No. 1(b) of this article, and in like
presented Pio Gaudier, the bookeeper.
manner indemnify him against all present or future
partnership liabilities.
The trial court found the conclusions of Lindaya and
(3) A partner who has caused the dissolution Santiago as just and correct - hence ordering Guidote
wrongfully shall have: to pay Borja the P26,020.89 with legal interest.
On 16 November 1987, having learned of the 2. If indeed a new partnership had come into
transfer of the firm's main office from Makati existence, whether petitioner Yu could
to Mandaluyong, petitioner Benjamin Yu nonetheless assert his rights under his
reported to the Mandaluyong office for work
and there met private respondent Willy Co for
employment contract as against the new personality of the old partnership. Article 1829
partnership. of the Civil Code states that: