Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 427 views

    G.R. No. 109248

    Uploaded by

    Jillian Batac
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the dissolution of a law partnership. It describes how the partnership was originally formed in 1937 and reconstituted several times, eventually becoming known as BITO, MISA & LOZADA in 1977. In 1988, petitioner Atty. Misa withdrew from the partnership through a letter. The SEC initially ruled the partnership was not dissolved by Misa's withdrawal, but later reversed this decision on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the SEC's ruling that Misa's withdrawal did dissolve the partnership. The court upheld this decision, finding a partnership at will, like BITO, MISA & LOZADA, can be dissolved by the withdrawal of any single partner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 109248

    Uploaded by

    Jillian Batac
    427 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the dissolution of a law partnership. It describes how the partnership was originally formed in 1937 and reconstituted several times, eventually becoming known as BITO, MISA & LOZADA in 1977. In 1988, petitioner Atty. Misa withdrew from the partnership through a letter. The SEC initially ruled the partnership was not dissolved by Misa's withdrawal, but later reversed this decision on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the SEC's ruling that Misa's withdrawal did dissolve the partnership. The court upheld this decision, finding a partnership at will, like BITO, MISA & LOZADA, can be dissolved by the withdrawal of any single partner.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case regarding the dissolution of a law partnership. It describes how the partnership was originally formed in 1937 and reconstituted several times, eventually becoming known as BITO, MISA & LOZADA in 1977. In 1988, petitioner Atty. Misa withdrew from the partnership through a letter. The SEC initially ruled the partnership was not dissolved by Misa's withdrawal, but later reversed this decision on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the SEC's ruling that Misa's withdrawal did dissolve the partnership. The court upheld this decision, finding a partnership at will, like BITO, MISA & LOZADA, can be dissolved by the withdrawal of any single partner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    427 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 109248

    Uploaded by

    Jillian Batac
    The document summarizes a court case regarding the dissolution of a law partnership. It describes how the partnership was originally formed in 1937 and reconstituted several times, eventually becoming known as BITO, MISA & LOZADA in 1977. In 1988, petitioner Atty. Misa withdrew from the partnership through a letter. The SEC initially ruled the partnership was not dissolved by Misa's withdrawal, but later reversed this decision on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the SEC's ruling that Misa's withdrawal did dissolve the partnership. The court upheld this decision, finding a partnership at will, like BITO, MISA & LOZADA, can be dissolved by the withdrawal of any single partner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, TOMAS O. DEL CASTILLO, JR. AND BENJAMIN T. BACORRO, petitioners vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND JOAQUIN L. MISA, respondents. G.R. No. 109248 JULY 3, 1995

    FACTS: The instant petition seeks a review of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals. The law firm of ROSS, LAWRENCE, SELPH and CARRASCOSO was duly registered in the Mercantile Registry on 4 January 1937 and reconstituted with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on 4 August 1948. The SEC records show that there were several subsequent amendment to the articles of partnership to change its name which eventually resulted to BITO, MISA & LOZADA on 1977. On 1980, appellees Bito and Lozada associated themselves together, as senior partners, with respondentsappellees Ortega, del Castillo and Bacorro, as junior partners. On 1988, petitioner-appellant wrote the respondents-appellees a letter statting that he is withdrawing and retiring from the firm of BITO, MISA & LOZADA and that the proper liquidation of the partnership should be made. The reason of the petitioner-appellant is that he is not agreeable with the way that the other partners is handling the partnership. The Petitioner filed with SECs Securities Investigation and Clearing Department (SICD) wherein it was declared that the partnership was not yet dissolved upon the petition for dissolution of the petitioner. On appeal, the Sec en banc reversed the decision of the Hearing Officer and held that the withdrawal of Atty. Misa had dissolved the partnership. The Court of Appeals, finding no reversible error on the part of respondent Commission, affirmed in toto the SEC decision and order appealed from. Hence, this present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the partnership was dissolved upon the petition for dissolution of Atty. Misa RULING: The decision appealed from is affirmed. A partnership does not fix its term is a partnership at will. That the law firm BITO, MISA & LOZADA is indeed such a partnership need not be unduly belaboured. The partnership agreement does not provide for a specified period or undertaking. The duration clause simply states that it shall continue so long as mutually satisfactory and upon the death or legal incapacity of one of the partners it shall be continued by the surviving partners.

    The birth and life of a partnership at will is predicated on the mutual desire and consent of the partners. The right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. Its continued existence is, in turn, dependent on the consistency of that mutual resolve, along with each partners capability to give it, and the absence of a cause for dissolution provided by the law itself. Verily, any one of the partners may, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will. He must, however, act in good faith, not that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership but that it can result in a liability for damages. The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the parties caused by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on, as might be distinguished from the winding up of, the business. 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 term retirement must have been used in the articles in generic sense to mean the dissociation by a partner, inclusive of resignation or withdrawal, from the partnership that dissolves it.

    You might also like