Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YU V NLRC ..............................................................................................................2
ESTANISLAO JR. V CA (160 SCRA 830) .....................................................................3
YULO V YANG CHIAO SENG.....................................................................................4
EVANGELISTA V COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE..............................................6
ONA V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ....................................................8
PASCUAL V COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE .............................................9
BASTIDA V. MENZI AND CO .................................................................................. 11
ANTON V OLIVA.................................................................................................... 12
TOCAO V CA ......................................................................................................... 13
ORTEGA V CA........................................................................................................ 13
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
YU V NLRC
G.R. No. 97212, June 30, 1993
BENJAMIN YU, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION(NLRC) and JADE
MOUNTAIN PRODUCTS COMPANY LIMITED, WILLY CO, RHODORA D.
BENDAL, LEA BENDAL, CHIU SHIAN JENG and CHEN HO-FU,
respondents.
FACTS
Benjamin Yu was the former Asst. General Manager of Jade
Mountain, a partnership engaged in marble quarrying and export of a
marble deposit in Bulacan, formed between Lea Bendal and Rhodora
Bendal as general partners and three other Taiwanese limited partners
(1st PARTNERSHIP). According to Yu, he actually received only half of his
stipulated monthly salary, since he had accepted the promise of the
partners that the balance would be paid when the firm shall have
secured additional operating funds from abroad. As Asst. GM, he
managed the operations and finances of the business and had overall
supervision of the workers at the marble quarry.
Sometime in 1988, without the knowledge of, the two general
partners SOLD and transferred their interests in the partnership to Willy
Co and Emmanuel Zapanta. Eventually, the partnership was constituted
solely by Co and Zapanta who continued to use the old firm name of Jade
Mountain. After the change, all partnership employees continued
working in the business except for Yu, whose salaries remained unpaid.
On Dec 1988, Yu filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
recovery of unpaid salaries against Jade Mountain, Co and the other
private respondents. The respondents mainly contend that Yu was never
hired as an employee by the present and new partnership.
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
We have gone over the evidence and we fully agree with the conclusion
of the trial court that the agreement was a sublease, not a
partnership.
The following are the requisites of partnership:
(1) two or more persons who bind themselves to contribute money,
property, or industry to a common fund; (2) intention on the part of the
partners to divide the profits among themselves.
Where one of the parties to a contract does not contribute the capital he
is supposed to contribute to a common fund; does not furnish any help
or intervention in the management of the business subject of the
contract; does not demand from the other party an accounting of the
expenses and earnings of the business; and is absolutely silent with
respect to any of the acts that a partner should have done, but, on the
other hand, receives a fixed monthly sum from the other party, there can
be no other conclusion than that the contract between the parties is one
of lease and not of partnership.
In the first place, plaintiff did not furnish the supposed P20,000 capital.
In the second place, she did not furnish any help or intervention in the
management of the theatre. In the third place, it does not appear that she
has ever demanded from defendant any accounting of the expenses and
earnings of the business. Were she really a partner, her first concern
should have been to find out how the business was progressing, whether
the expenses were legitimate, whether the earnings were correct, etc.
She was absolutely silent with respect to any of the acts that a partner
should have done; all that she did was to receive her share of P3,000 a
month, which cannot be interpreted in any manner than a payment for
the use of the premises which she had leased from the owners.
We find no error in the judgment of the court below and we affirm it in
toto, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.
HELD:
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
in his letter of demand be reversed, and that they be absolved from the
payment of the taxes in question, with costs against the respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Eufemia Evangelista, Manuela Evangelista and Francisca
Evangelista borrowed from their father the sum of P59,1400.00 which
amount together with their personal monies was used by them for the
purpose of buying real properties. They bought from:
1. Mrs. Josefina Florentino, a lot with an area of 3,713.40 sq. m.
including improvements thereon from the sum of P100,000.00,
2. Mrs. Josefa Oppus, 21 parcels of land with an aggregate area of
3,718.40 sq. m. including improvements thereon for
P130,000.00,
3. the Insular Investments Inc., a lot of 4,353 sq. m. including
improvements thereon for P108,825.00, and
4. Mrs. Valentina Afable a lot of 8,371 sq. m. including
improvements thereon for P237,234.34.
In a document they appointed their brother Simeon Evangelista to
manage their properties with full power to lease; to collect and receive
rents; to issue receipts therefor; in default of such payment, to bring
suits against the defaulting tenants; to sign all letters, contracts, etc., for
and in their behalf, and to endorse and deposit all notes and checks for
them.
ISSUE
W/N petitioners are subject to the tax on corporations provided for in
section 24 of Commonwealth Act. No. 466, otherwise known as the
National Internal Revenue Code, as well as to the residence tax for
corporations and the real estate dealers fixed tax.
RATIO
YES. Pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code, the essential elements of
a partnership are two, namely: (a) an agreement to contribute money,
property or industry to a common fund; and (b) intent to divide the
profits among the contracting parties. The first element is undoubtedly
present in the case at bar, for, admittedly, petitioners have agreed to, and
did, contribute money and property to a common fund. Hence, the issue
narrows down to their intent in acting as they did. Upon consideration of
all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are fully
satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate transactions for
monetary gain and then divide the same among themselves, because:
Said common fund was not something they found already in
existence. It was not property inherited by them pro indiviso.
They created it purposely. What is more they jointly borrowed a
substantial portion thereof in order to establish said common
fund.
They invested the same, not merely not merely in one
transaction, but in a series of transactions. The number of lots
(24) acquired and transactions undertaken, as well as the brief
interregnum between each, particularly the last three purchases,
is strongly indicative of a pattern or common design that was
not limited to the conservation and preservation of the
aforementioned common fund or even of the property acquired
by the petitioners in February, 1943. In other words, one cannot
but perceive a character of habitually peculiar to business
transactions engaged in the purpose of gain.
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
ISSUE/S:
WON an unregistered partnership was formed
RULING:
From the moment the heirs allowed not only the incomes from their
respective shares of the inheritance but even the inherited properties
themselves to be used by Oa as a common fund in undertaking several
transactions or in business, with the intention of deriving profit to be
shared by them proportionally, such act was tantamount to actually
contributing such incomes to a common fund and, in effect, they thereby
formed an unregistered partnership within the purview of the abovementioned provisions of the Tax Code.
RATIO:
For tax purposes, the co-ownership of inherited properties is
automatically converted into an unregistered partnership the moment
the said common properties and/or the incomes derived therefrom are
used as a common fund with intent to produce profits for the heirs in
proportion to their respective shares in the inheritance as determined in
a project partition either duly executed in an extrajudicial settlement or
approved by the court in the corresponding testate or intestate
proceeding.
The reason for this is simple. From the moment of such partition, the
heirs are entitled already to their respective definite shares of the estate
and the incomes thereof, for each of them to manage and dispose of as
exclusively his own without the intervention of the other heirs, and,
accordingly he becomes liable individually for all taxes in connection
therewith. If after such partition, he allows his share to be held in
common with his co-heirs under a single management to be used with
the intent of making profit thereby in proportion to his share, there can
be no doubt that, even if no document or instrument were executed for
the purpose, for tax purposes, at least, an unregistered partnership is
formed. This is exactly what happened to petitioners in this case.
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
FACTS
The distinction between co-ownership and an unregistered partnership
or joint venture for income tax purposes is the issue in this petition.
RATIO
The basis of the subject decision of the respondent court WAs the ruling
of this Court in Evangelista. In the said case, petitioners borrowed a sum
of money from their father which together with their own personal
funds they used in buying several real properties. They appointed their
brother to manage their properties with full power to lease, collect, rent,
issue receipts, etc. They had the real properties rented or leased to
various tenants for several years and they gained net profits from the
rental income. Thus, the Collector of Internal Revenue demanded the
payment of income tax on a corporation, among others, from them.
xxx
Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
case, we are fully satisfied that their purpose was to engage in real estate
transactions for monetary gain and then divide the same among
themselves, because:
1. Said common fund was not something they found already in existence.
It was not a property inherited by them pro indiviso. They created it
HELD
No.
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
10
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
11
RATIO: The relationship established between the parties was not that of
partners, but that of employer and employee, whereby the plaintiff was
to receive 35% of the net profits of the fertilizer business of Menzi in
compensation for his services for supervising the mixing of the
fertilizers. Neither the provisions of the contract nor the conduct of the
parties prior or subsequent to its execution justified the finding that it
was a contract of copartnership. The written contract was, in fact, a
continuation of the verbal agreement between the parties, whereby the
plaintiff worked for the defendant corporation for one- half of the net
profits derived by the corporation form certain fertilizer contracts.
According to Art. 116 of the Code of Commerce, articles of association by
which two or more persons obligate themselves to place in a common
fund any property, industry, or any of these things, in order to obtain
profit, shall be commercial, no matter what it class may be, provided it
has been established in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
However in this case, there was no common fund. The business belonged
to Menzi & Co. The plaintiff was working for Menzi, and instead of
receiving a fixed salary, he was to receive 35% of the net profits as
compensation for his services. The phrase in the written contract en
sociedad con, which is used as a basis of the plaintiff to prove
partnership in this case, merely means en reunion con or in association
with.
It is also important to note that although Menzi agreed to furnish the
necessary financial aid for the fertilizer business, it did not obligate itself
to contribute any fixed sum as capital or to defray at its own expense the
cost of securing the necessary credit.
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
ANTON V OLIVA
FACTS:
Ernesto and Corazon (Olivas) filed an action for accounting and specific
performance with damages against spouses Jose Miguel and Gladys
Miriam Anton (Antons) before RTC. The Olivas alleged that they entered
into 3 MOAs setting up a business partnership covering 3 fast food
stores known as Pinoy Toppings to be established at SM Megamall,
Cubao and Southmall. In the agreement, Olivas will get 30% of the net
profits in megamall and 20% in cubao and southmall stores.
Antons gave them P2,547,000 as shares of Olivas. But did not give them
their shares in SM Cubao and later on beginning Nov. 1997, Antons
stopped giving the shares of Olivas. Antons alleged that they never
partnered with the Olivas in the operations of the 3 stores. It is to be
noted that Gladys filed a separation case with Jose Miguel (partnership
terminated).
12
RTC holds that there was no partnership but Antons had an obligation to
render accounting and pay the share of Olivas. Antons appealed but CA
affirmed the decision but modified it by deleting the order to get an
independent accountant. It further ordered to pay Olivas the shares with
interest.
ISSUE:
W/N Antons have the obligation to pay the Olivas their shares of the net
profits of the 3 stores plus legal interest on the shares.
HELD: Yes!
RATIO:
The relationship between the parties was that creditor-debtor and not
partnership. Although MOA denominated the Oliva as partners the
amounts they gave did not appear to be capital contributions to the
establishment of the stores. Although Olivas were mere creditors,
Antons agreed to compensate them for the risk they have taken. There
was nothing illegal or immoral about this compensation scheme. Thus,
unless the MOAs are subsequently terminated on valid grounds, the
same remain valid and enforceable. Their obligation to pay their shares
was not extinguished.
Olivas have no right to demand accounting since they were not partners,
but they have the right to know so that they will know how much profit
they will make (diba based on percentages). The interest (12%)
awarded are not interest on the loan but interest on the unpaid shares of
net profits of the 3 stores.
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
RULING:
FACTS:
RATIO:
On November 14, 2001, Tocao and Belo filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the SC Decision dated October 4, 2000. The
dispositive portion of said decision states:
"WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is
DENIED. The partnership among petitioners and private
respondent is ordered dissolved, and the parties are ordered to
effect the winding up and liquidation of the partnership pursuant
to the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code. This case is remanded
to the Regional Trial Court for proper proceedings relative to said
dissolution. The appealed decisions of the Regional Trial Court and
the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS, as
follows ---"
They maintain that there was no partnership between Belo and Anay;
and that the latter being merely an employee of Tocao.
According to the testimony of Elizabeth Bantilan, a witness, Belo
guarantees the stocks that she owes somebody who is Peter Lo and he
acts as guarantor for us. We can borrow money from him. She affirmed
that Lo is the one fixing our orders that open the L/C. She affirmed that
Lo was the financier and Belo was a guarantor.
ORTEGA V CA
FACTS:
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not a partnership existed between Belo and Anay.
13
The law firm of ROSS, LAWRENCE, SELPH and CARRASCOSO was duly
registered in the Mercantile Registry on 4 January 1937 and
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
HELD:
Yes. A partnership that does not fix its term is a partnership at will. That
the law firm "Bito, Misa & Lozada," and now "Bito, Lozada, Ortega and
Castillo," (somewhere during the pendency of the case, new partners
were included and Misa died) is indeed such a partnership need not be
unduly belabored. We quote, with approval, like did the appellate court,
the findings and disquisition of respondent SEC on this matter; viz:
ISSUE:
whether the Withdrawal and retirement of Joaquin Misa dissolved the
partnership of Bito, Misa and Lozada?
14
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON
15
ALOJADO. ATIENZA. BALDERAMA. CAMARAO. CARANDANG. CRUZ. ESTILLES. GARCIA. GONZAGA. HUI. LAZARO.SENAJON