Guidote Vs Borja
Guidote Vs Borja
Guidote Vs Borja
Borja
G.R. No. L-28920
1928
October 24,
Facts:
Plaintiff is the industrial partner, while
deceased is the capitalist partner
Plaintiff sued the administratrix of the
estate of the deceased Santos to recover
sum of 9,534 php, alleged to be the net
profits due the plaintiff in a partnership
business conducted under the name of
"Taller Sinukuan
Respondent
admitted
existence
of
partnership. Consequently, she filed a
counterclaim praying that the plaintiff be
ordered to render an accounting of the
partnership business and to pay to the
estate of the deceased the sum of P25,000
as net profits, credits, and property
pertaining to said deceased.
Guidote called several witnesses and
introduced a so-called accounting and a
mass of documentary evidence which
hopelessly and inextricably confused that
the court could not consider it of much
probative value.
However, court ordered that respondent
be absolved from the action and to render
an account thereof to the administratrix of
Santos' estate since plaintiff failed to
liquidate the affairs of the partnership
Defendant Borja then presented an
account and liquidation prepared by a
public accountant, Santiago A. Lindaya,
showing a balance of P29,088.95 in favor
of the defendant. In addition,
defendant
introduced
the
public
accountant Jose Turiano Santiago to
testify as to the results of an audit made
by him of the accounts of the partnership.
The plaintiff presented Tomas Alfonso and
the bookkeeper, Pio Gaudier, as witnesses
consequence
of
this
trusteeship,
surviving partners are held in their
dealings with the firm assets and the
representatives of the deceased to
that nicety of dealing and that
strictness of accountability required
of and incident to the position of one
occupying a confidential relation. It is
the duty of surviving partners to
render an account of the performance
of their trust to the personal
representatives
of
the
deceased
partner, and to pay over to them the
share of such deceased member in the
surplus of firm property, whether it
consists of real or personal assets.
Perhaps the court could have more
inclined to question the conclusions of
Lindaya and Santiago if the plaintiff had
shown a disposition to render an
honest account of the business and to
effect a fair liquidation of the
partnership but instead of doing so,
he has by means of very questionable, and
apparently false, evidence sought to mulct
his deceased partner's estate to the extent
of over P9,000.