Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    07 07 Part 2

    Uploaded by

    Nikita Dacera
    The case involves a petition filed by Anay against Tocao and Belo alleging she was a partner in their business venture. While there was no written contract, the Supreme Court ruled there was an oral partnership agreement based on the parties' contributions and admissions from Tocao. The court found the requisites for forming a partnership were present.

    Copyright:

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

    07 07 Part 2

    Uploaded by

    Nikita Dacera
    17 views1 page
    The case involves a petition filed by Anay against Tocao and Belo alleging she was a partner in their business venture. While there was no written contract, the Supreme Court ruled there was an oral partnership agreement based on the parties' contributions and admissions from Tocao. The court found the requisites for forming a partnership were present.

    Original Title

    07-07-part-2

    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 case involves a petition filed by Anay against Tocao and Belo alleging she was a partner in their business venture. While there was no written contract, the Supreme Court ruled there was an oral partnership agreement based on the parties' contributions and admissions from Tocao. The court found the requisites for forming a partnership were present.

    Copyright:

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

    07 07 Part 2

    Uploaded by

    Nikita Dacera
    The case involves a petition filed by Anay against Tocao and Belo alleging she was a partner in their business venture. While there was no written contract, the Supreme Court ruled there was an oral partnership agreement based on the parties' contributions and admissions from Tocao. The court found the requisites for forming a partnership were present.

    Copyright:

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

    MARJORIE TOCAO AND WILLIAM BELO V.

    COURT OF
    APPEALS AND NENITA A. ANAY
    GR NO. 127405 | October 4, 2000

    FACTS: This involves a petition for sum of money filed by Anay


    against Tocao and Belo, who she alleges as her partner in the
    business venture they have entered.

    In this case, Belo introduced Anay to Tocao, who conveyed her


    desire to enter into a joint venture with Tocao for importation and
    local distribution of kitchen cookwares. 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.

    Under the joint venture, Belo acted as capitalist, Tocao as


    president and general manager, and Anay as head of the
    marketing department and later, vice-president for sales.

    The parties agreed further that Anay would be entitled to:


    (1) ten percent (10%) of the annual net profits of the business;
    (2) overriding commission of six percent (6%) of the overall
    weekly production;
    (3) thirty percent (30%) of the sales she would make; and
    (4) two percent (2%) for her demonstration services

    The cookware business took off successfully. They operated


    under the name of Geminesse Enterprise, a sole proprietorship
    registered in Marjorie Tocao’s name.

    Later on, Anay learned that Marjorie Tocao had signed a letter
    that she is no longer the the V-Pres. of Geminisse Enterprise.
    Any also received a note from Lina T. Cruz, marketing manager,
    that Marjorie Tocao had barred her from holding office and
    conducting demonstrations regarding the business.

    Anay still received her five percent (5%) overriding commission


    up to December 1987. The following year, 1988, she did not
    receive the same commission although the company netted a
    gross sale of P13,300,360.00. This prompter Anay to file a
    petition for sum of money against Tocao and Belo.

    She alleges that as an industrial partner in the business, she is


    entitled to the share in the profits of the business. However,
    Tocao and Belo there exist a partnership.

    ISSUE: Whether or not there is a partnership. YES.

    HELD: According to the Supreme Court, even though there is no


    written contract between the parties, there is still a partnership.

    This implies that since the contract of partnership is consensual,


    an oral contract of partnership is as good as a written one. Where
    no immovable property or real rights are involved, what matters is
    that the parties have complied with the requisites of a
    partnership. The fact that there appears to be no record in the
    Securities and Exchange Commission of a public instrument
    embodying the partnership agreement pursuant to Article 1772 of
    the Civil Code.

    In this case, Tocao admitted that Anay has an indispensable role


    in putting up the business. Also, Tocao admitted that Anay is in-
    charge in managing the administrative staff and sales force, and
    based on Tocao’s testimony, she admitted that the amount she is
    paying Anay is the same amount she received from the profit of
    the partnership.

    Hence, the requisites in forming a partnership are all present in


    this case.

     What was the contribution of the parties? – Tocao


    contributed money while Anay contributed industry. Belo is
    not liable because he considered to be a guarantor, and
    not a capitalist.

     We will go back to this case when we reach the topic on


    dissolution.

    You might also like