Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Tocao Et Al. vs. CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Lim
    The three parties entered into a joint venture business to import and distribute kitchen cookwares. Anay was to act as head of marketing and later vice president of sales, and would receive commissions and percentages of profits and sales. Though not written, the court found this created an oral partnership as there was intention to create a partnership, contributions of money and labor, and joint interest in profits. While registered under Tocao's name, the court ruled the business was a partnership, not a sole proprietorship. The court ordered the partnership dissolved and liquidated according to the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

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

    Tocao Et Al. vs. CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Lim
    83 views1 page
    The three parties entered into a joint venture business to import and distribute kitchen cookwares. Anay was to act as head of marketing and later vice president of sales, and would receive commissions and percentages of profits and sales. Though not written, the court found this created an oral partnership as there was intention to create a partnership, contributions of money and labor, and joint interest in profits. While registered under Tocao's name, the court ruled the business was a partnership, not a sole proprietorship. The court ordered the partnership dissolved and liquidated according to the Civil Code.

    Original Title

    Tocao et al. vs. CA_Digest

    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 three parties entered into a joint venture business to import and distribute kitchen cookwares. Anay was to act as head of marketing and later vice president of sales, and would receive commissions and percentages of profits and sales. Though not written, the court found this created an oral partnership as there was intention to create a partnership, contributions of money and labor, and joint interest in profits. While registered under Tocao's name, the court ruled the business was a partnership, not a sole proprietorship. The court ordered the partnership dissolved and liquidated according to the Civil Code.

    Copyright:

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

    Tocao Et Al. vs. CA - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Lim
    The three parties entered into a joint venture business to import and distribute kitchen cookwares. Anay was to act as head of marketing and later vice president of sales, and would receive commissions and percentages of profits and sales. Though not written, the court found this created an oral partnership as there was intention to create a partnership, contributions of money and labor, and joint interest in profits. While registered under Tocao's name, the court ruled the business was a partnership, not a sole proprietorship. The court ordered the partnership dissolved and liquidated according to the Civil Code.

    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 T. BELO vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NENITA A.

    ANAY
    JOINT VENTURE

    October 4, 2000 G.R. No. 127405 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

    FACTS

    Nenita A. Anay, William T. Belo, and Marjorie Tocao entered into a joint venture for the importation and local
    distribution of kitchen cookwares. 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 agreement was not reduced to
    writing on the strength of Belos assurances that he was sincere, dependable and honest when it came to financial
    commitments. They operated under the name of Geminesse Enterprise, a sole proprietorship registered in
    Marjorie Tocaos name. On October 9, 1987, Marjorie Tocao had signed a letter addressed to the Cubao sales
    office to the effect that Anay was no longer the vice-president of Geminesse Enterprise. The following day, Anay
    received a note from the marketing manager, that Marjorie Tocao had barred her from holding office and
    conducting demonstrations in both Makati and Cubao offices.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not partnership exist among Anay, Marjorie Tocao, and Belo?

    . RULING

    Yes. The trial court held that there was indeed an oral partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the
    defendants, based on the following: (a) there was an intention to create a partnership; (b) a common fund was
    established through contributions consisting of money and industry, and (c) there was a joint interest in the profits
    The trial court further held that the payment of commissions did not preclude the existence of the partnership
    inasmuch as such practice is often resorted to in business circles as an impetus to bigger sales volume. It did not
    matter that the agreement was not in writing because Article 1771 of the Civil Code provides that a partnership
    may be constituted in any form. The fact that Geminesse Enterprise was registered in Marjorie Tocaos name is not
    determinative of whether or not the business was managed and operated by a sole proprietor or a partnership.
    What was registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade was merely the business name or style of Geminesse
    Enterprise.

    FALLO

    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

    You might also like