Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 180 views

    Marjorie Tocao vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Valora France Miral Aranas
    The parties - Marjorie Tocao, William Belo, and Nenita Anay - verbally agreed to form a joint venture called Geminesse Enterprise for the sale of cooking wares. Belo would finance the venture, while Tocao would act as president and Anay would be in charge of marketing, using her experience and contacts. They operated as a sole proprietorship registered under Tocao's name. Anay filed a complaint against Tocao and Belo, arguing they had formed an oral partnership. The court ruled that the parties' actions demonstrated they intended to form and did form a partnership, with each contributing different roles, so Anay was entitled to damages from an unjustified dissolution

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marjorie Tocao vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Valora France Miral Aranas
    180 views1 page
    The parties - Marjorie Tocao, William Belo, and Nenita Anay - verbally agreed to form a joint venture called Geminesse Enterprise for the sale of cooking wares. Belo would finance the venture, while Tocao would act as president and Anay would be in charge of marketing, using her experience and contacts. They operated as a sole proprietorship registered under Tocao's name. Anay filed a complaint against Tocao and Belo, arguing they had formed an oral partnership. The court ruled that the parties' actions demonstrated they intended to form and did form a partnership, with each contributing different roles, so Anay was entitled to damages from an unjustified dissolution

    Original Title

    5. Marjorie Tocao vs. Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The parties - Marjorie Tocao, William Belo, and Nenita Anay - verbally agreed to form a joint venture called Geminesse Enterprise for the sale of cooking wares. Belo would finance the venture, while Tocao would act as president and Anay would be in charge of marketing, using her experience and contacts. They operated as a sole proprietorship registered under Tocao's name. Anay filed a complaint against Tocao and Belo, arguing they had formed an oral partnership. The court ruled that the parties' actions demonstrated they intended to form and did form a partnership, with each contributing different roles, so Anay was entitled to damages from an unjustified dissolution

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    180 views1 page

    Marjorie Tocao vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Valora France Miral Aranas
    The parties - Marjorie Tocao, William Belo, and Nenita Anay - verbally agreed to form a joint venture called Geminesse Enterprise for the sale of cooking wares. Belo would finance the venture, while Tocao would act as president and Anay would be in charge of marketing, using her experience and contacts. They operated as a sole proprietorship registered under Tocao's name. Anay filed a complaint against Tocao and Belo, arguing they had formed an oral partnership. The court ruled that the parties' actions demonstrated they intended to form and did form a partnership, with each contributing different roles, so Anay was entitled to damages from an unjustified dissolution

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    5. Marjorie Tocao AND WILLIAM T. BELO, PETITIONERS vs. Court of Appeals AND NENITA A.

    ANAY, RESPONDENTS.
    October 4, 2000, GR No. 127405
    Facts:
    William Belo, the vice-president for operations of Ultra Clean Water Purifier, introduced Nenita Anay to
    his girlfriend, Marjorie Tocao. The three agreed verbally to form a joint venture for the sale of cooking
    wares. Belo volunteered to finance the joint venture and assigned to Anay the job of marketing the
    product considering her experience and established relationship with West Bend Company, a
    manufacturer of kitchen wares in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Belo was to contribute P2.5 million; Tocao also
    contributed some cash and she shall also act as president and general manager; and Anay shall be in
    charge of marketing. The parties agreed that Belo's name should not appear in any documents, but will
    use Anay’s name in securing distributorship of cookware from that company. They operated under the
    name of Geminesse Enterprise, a sole proprietorship registered in Marjorie Tocao's name.
    Respondent’s Argument: There is an oral partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants.
    Nenita A. Anay filed a complaint for sum of money with damages against Marjorie D. Tocao and William
    Belo before the RTC.
    Petitioner’s Argument: With no participation in the profits, petitioner Belo cannot be deemed a partner in
    Geminesse Enterprise, but a guarantor since the essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the
    profits and losses petitioner, and hence the complaint against him should be dismissed. Petitioner
    maintains that respondent Nenita A. Anay is not a partner, but was a merely an employee of petitioner
    Tocao. RTC and CA ruled that there was a partnership, hence this petition for review.
    ISSUE: Whether the parties formed a partnership.
    Ruling: Yes, the parties involved in this case formed a partnership. In the case at hand, Belo acted as
    capitalist while Tocao as president and general manager, and Anay as head of the marketing department
    and later, vice-president for sales. Furthermore, Anay was entitled to a percentage of the net profits of the
    business. Therefore, the parties formed a partnership.
    Anay contributed such expertise to the partnership and hence, under the law, she was the industrial or
    managing partner. Belo's claim that he was merely a "guarantor" has no basis since there was no written
    evidence thereof as required by Article 2055 of the Civil Code. Moreover, his acts of attending and/or
    presiding over meetings and his issuance of a memo giving Anay 37% commission on personal sales
    demonstrated his involvement as a partner in the business.
    A partnership may be constituted in any form; a public instrument is necessary only where immovable
    property or real rights are contributed thereto. This implies that since a contract of partnership is
    consensual, an oral contract of partnership is as good as a written one.
    An unjustified dissolution by a partner can subject him to action for damages because by the mutual
    agency that arises in a partnership, the doctrine of delectus personae allows the partners to have the
    power, although not necessarily the right to dissolve the partnership.
    WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The partnership ordered
    dissolved, and the petitioners are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent of commission
    and damages.

    You might also like