Ortega Vs CA

Ortega vs CA
G.R. No. 109248

July 3, 1995
Facts:
The law firm of Ross, Lawrence, Selph & Carrascoso was duly registered in
the Mercantile Registry and reconstituted with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Through the years, there were several amendments to the Articles of
Partnership and firm name. The firm name was last changed into Bito,
Misa & Lozada.
Petitioner Ortega, a junior partner, withdrew from the firm because of
unfair treatment to employees.
Petitioner filed with the SEC a petition for dissolution and liquidation of
partnership.
The hearing officer rendered a decision ruling that petitioner's withdrawal
from the law firm did not dissolve the said partnership. SEC en banc
reversed the decision of the hearing officer and held that the withdrawal
of private respondent Atty. Misa had dissolved the partnership of Bito,
Misa & Lozada. Being a partnership at will, the law firm could be dissolved
by any partner at anytime, such as by his withdrawal, regardless of good
faith or bad faith, since no partner can be forced to continue in the
partnership against his will.
Atty. Misa asked for an appointment of a receiver to take over the assets
of the dissolved partnership and to take charge of the winding up of its
affairs.
Respondent SEC denied the MR, rejected the petition for receivership, and
remanded the case to the hearing officer.
During the pendency of the case with the CA, Atty. Bito and Atty. Lozada
both passed away. The death of the two partners, as well as the admission
of new partners, in the law firm prompted Atty. Misa to renew his
application for receivership expressing concern over the need to preserve
and care for the partnership assets.
The CA affirmed the SEC decision. CA further ruled that Atty. Misa's
withdrawal from the partnership had changed the relation of the parties
and caused the dissolution of the partnership; that such withdrawal was
not in bad faith; that the liquidation should be to the extent of Atty. Misa's
interest or participation in the partnership which could be computed and
paid in the manner stipulated in the partnership agreement; The case
should be remanded to the SEC Hearing Officer for the corresponding
determination of the value of Attorney Misa's share in the partnership
assets; that the appointment of a receiver was unnecessary as no
sufficient proof had been shown to indicate that the partnership assets
were in any such danger of being lost, removed or materially impaired.
Issues:
Whether the partnership of Bito, Misa & Lozada (now Bito, Lozada, Ortega &
Castillo) is a partnership at will? YES.
Whether the withdrawal of private respondent dissolved the partnership
regardless of his good or bad faith? YES.
Whether the private respondent's demand for the dissolution of the
partnership so that he can get a physical partition of partnership was made
in bad faith? NO.
Held:
The law firm Bito, Misa & Lozada, now Bito, Lozada, Ortega and Castillo, is a
partnership at will, which is a partnership that does not fix its term.
The partnership agreement does not provide for a specified period or
undertaking. The Duration clause states that the partnership shall
continue so long as mutually satisfactory and upon the death or legal
incapacity of one of the partners, shall be continued by the surviving
partners.
The Purpose clause in the Articles of Partnership is not the specific
undertaking contemplated by law. Otherwise, all partnerships, which
necessarily must have a purpose, would all be considered as
partnerships for a definite undertaking. There would therefore be no
need to provide for articles on partnership at will as none would so
exist. What the law contemplates, is a specific undertaking or "project"
which has a definite or definable period of completion.
The withdrawal of private respondent dissolved the partnership regardless of
his good or bad faith
Any one of the partners may, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution
of the partnership at will. The attendance of bad faith cannot prevent
the dissolution of the partnership, however, it can result in a liability for
damages.
The right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is
the very foundation and essence of that partnership. The birth and life
of a partnership at will is predicated on the mutual desire and consent
of the partners.
Its continued existence is dependent on the constancy of that mutual
resolve, along with each partner's capability to give it, and the absence
of a cause for dissolution provided by the law itself.
The doctrine of delectus personae allows them to have the power, although
not necessarily the right, to dissolve the partnership.
In passing, neither would the presence of a period for its specific
duration or the statement of a particular purpose for its creation
prevent the dissolution of any partnership by an act or will of a partner.
Among partners, mutual agency arises.

An unjustified dissolution by the partner can subject him to a possible
action for damages.
Upon its dissolution, the partnership continues and its legal personality is
retained until the complete winding up of its business culminating in its
termination.
The liquidation of the assets of the partnership following its dissolution
is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code; however, an agreement
of the partners, like any other contract, is binding among them and
normally takes precedence to the extent applicable over the Code's
general provisions.
The Articles of Partnership speaks of death or retirement. The term
"retirement" was interpreted by the court, in a generic sense, to mean
the dissociation by a partner, inclusive of resignation or withdrawal,
from the partnership that thereby dissolves it.
Private respondent's demand for the dissolution so that he can get a physical
partition of partnership was not made in bad faith.
It would not be right to let any of the partners remain in the
partnership under an atmosphere of animosity or interpersonal
conflict; certainly, not against their will.
Bad faith cannot be said to characterize the withdrawal for as long as
the reason of a partner is not contrary to the dictates of justice and
fairness, nor for the purpose of unduly visiting harm and damage upon
the partnership.
Bad faith, in the context here used, is no different from its normal
concept of a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a
dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.

Ortega Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ortega Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ortega Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ortega vs CA

G.R. No. 109248

Among partners, mutual agency arises.

You might also like