Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 661 views

    Facts: Duterte (Plaintiff-Appellant) Claimed That Rallos (Defendant), and One Castro Were

    Uploaded by

    Roxanne Jurial
    Duterte claimed he entered into a verbal partnership contract with Rallos to manage a cockpit business. Rallos denied any partnership. The lower court found no partnership existed. However, the Supreme Court found the lower court's decision was against the evidence. The evidence, including accounts and letters showing Duterte's share of profits and Rallos admitting Duterte into the partnership, clearly showed a partnership did exist between Duterte and Rallos to manage the cockpit and share its profits. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled a new trial must be held, as the lower court's finding of no partnership was contrary to the evidence presented.

    Copyright:

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

    Facts: Duterte (Plaintiff-Appellant) Claimed That Rallos (Defendant), and One Castro Were

    Uploaded by

    Roxanne Jurial
    661 views1 page
    Duterte claimed he entered into a verbal partnership contract with Rallos to manage a cockpit business. Rallos denied any partnership. The lower court found no partnership existed. However, the Supreme Court found the lower court's decision was against the evidence. The evidence, including accounts and letters showing Duterte's share of profits and Rallos admitting Duterte into the partnership, clearly showed a partnership did exist between Duterte and Rallos to manage the cockpit and share its profits. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled a new trial must be held, as the lower court's finding of no partnership was contrary to the evidence presented.

    Original Description:

    Business Organization

    Original Title

    Duterte v Rallos

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Duterte claimed he entered into a verbal partnership contract with Rallos to manage a cockpit business. Rallos denied any partnership. The lower court found no partnership existed. However, the Supreme Court found the lower court's decision was against the evidence. The evidence, including accounts and letters showing Duterte's share of profits and Rallos admitting Duterte into the partnership, clearly showed a partnership did exist between Duterte and Rallos to manage the cockpit and share its profits. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled a new trial must be held, as the lower court's finding of no partnership was contrary to the evidence presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    661 views1 page

    Facts: Duterte (Plaintiff-Appellant) Claimed That Rallos (Defendant), and One Castro Were

    Uploaded by

    Roxanne Jurial
    Duterte claimed he entered into a verbal partnership contract with Rallos to manage a cockpit business. Rallos denied any partnership. The lower court found no partnership existed. However, the Supreme Court found the lower court's decision was against the evidence. The evidence, including accounts and letters showing Duterte's share of profits and Rallos admitting Duterte into the partnership, clearly showed a partnership did exist between Duterte and Rallos to manage the cockpit and share its profits. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled a new trial must be held, as the lower court's finding of no partnership was contrary to the evidence presented.

    Copyright:

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

    Duterte v Rallos (2 P 509)

    Facts: Duterte (plaintiff-appellant) claimed that Rallos (defendant), and one Castro were
    partners in the management of a cockpit. However, Rallos denied said claim. The court
    found that no such partnership existed and ordered judgment in favor with Rallos.
    It is undisputed that the plaintiff rendered services in the management of the cockpit,
    and that the defendant paid him money on account of the cockpit.
    Rallos, after denying that the plaintiff was his partner, testified that the profits were
    divided. A portion of which was given to two friends, Duterte and Castro, but not as
    partners. A portion was given to Duterte solely because he was a friend who aided and
    encouraged the cockpit and had no duty to perform, except when he had to preside at the
    cockpit. He added that he only paid them for his pleasure, as friends, Duterte had no legal
    interest.
    Duterte testified that he made a verbal contract of partnership with the Rallos for this
    business, uncontradicted evidence that he performed services in connection with it; that
    Rallos paid him the money on account thereof and sent him accounts for three months
    showing his interest to be one-third of the profits in addition to the $5 each day, and
    wrote him a letter in which he said that he admitted the Duterte into the partnership in
    order to collect what Duterte owed him on another transaction. The lower court found
    that no such partnership existed and ordered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff
    moved for a new trial, which was denied.
    Issue: Whether or not Duterte and Rallos entered into a contract of partnership.
    Held: Yes, Duterte and Rallos entered into a contract of partnership.
    The SC have examined the evidence and are of the opinion that the finding of the
    lower court as to the existence of the copartnership is manifestly against the evidence.
    The Court see no other way of explaining the accounts submitted by the defendant to the
    plaintiff. The evidence (letters and testimonies) presented clearly showed than that there
    was a partnership between them up. That there was an agreement to share the profits is
    clearly proved by the accounts submitted. The plaintiff testified that the profits and losses
    were to be shared equally. But even omitting this testimony, the case is covered by article
    1689 of the Civil Code, which provides that, in the absence of agreement as to the losses,
    they shall be shared as the gains are. Article 1668 of the Civil Code is not applicable to
    the case. No real estate was contributed by any member. The partnership did not become
    the owner of the cockpit. It is undisputed that this was owned by the defendant and that
    the partnership paid him ten dollars a day for the use of it. The finding of fact by the court
    below, that there was no partnership, at least to September 1, 1901, was plainly and
    manifestly against the evidence, and for that reason a new trial of this case must be had.

    You might also like