Scribd
Upload
34 views1 page

(Partnership Distinguished From Other Contracts) Sicad, Mark Anthony J. Heirs of Tan Eng Kee V. Ca

The heirs of Tan Eng Kee claimed he had a partnership with his brother Tan Eng Law in a business. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was no partnership based on the petitioners failing to show how profits were shared or that Tan Eng Kee ever requested an accounting of the business over 40 years. While a contract or articles of partnership would have provided the best evidence of a partnership, none existed so the court relied on circumstantial evidence which did not clearly show Tan Eng Kee's role in the business was as a partner rather than an employee. A dissenting opinion argued the brothers pooled resources and shared profits, and the lack of accounting requests could be because they were brothers, so an informal partnership was possible.

Uploaded by

Mark Anthony Javellana Sicad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views1 page

(Partnership Distinguished From Other Contracts) Sicad, Mark Anthony J. Heirs of Tan Eng Kee V. Ca

The heirs of Tan Eng Kee claimed he had a partnership with his brother Tan Eng Law in a business. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was no partnership based on the petitioners failing to show how profits were shared or that Tan Eng Kee ever requested an accounting of the business over 40 years. While a contract or articles of partnership would have provided the best evidence of a partnership, none existed so the court relied on circumstantial evidence which did not clearly show Tan Eng Kee's role in the business was as a partner rather than an employee. A dissenting opinion argued the brothers pooled resources and shared profits, and the lack of accounting requests could be because they were brothers, so an informal partnership was possible.

Uploaded by

Mark Anthony Javellana Sicad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

[PARTNERSHIP; DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER CONTRACTS]

Sicad, Mark Anthony J.

HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE V. CA

The heirs of Tan Eng Kee are alleging that Tan Eng Kee and his brother Tan
Eng Law that the brothers had an alleged partnership which was later turned
into a corporation. The heirs also allege that the business of the partnership
prospered due to the hard work and thrift of both brothers and the
conversion of the partnership into a corporation was a ruse to deprive Tan
Eng Kee and his heirs of their rightful participation in the profits of the
business.

The SC ruled that there was no partnership in this case and that Tan Eng
Kee was a mere employee of his brother. The petitioners failed to show how
much Tan Eng Kee received, if any, as his share in the profits for any
particular period. Hence, they failed to prove that Tan Eng Kee and Tan Eng
Lay intended to divide the profits of the business between themselves, which
is one of the essential features of a partnership. The Court also found it odd
that despite 40 years of the partnership’s alleged existence, Tan Eng Kee
never asked for an accounting. A demand for periodic accounting is
evidence of a partnership.

The best evidence would’ve been the contract of partnership itself, or the
articles of partnership but there is none so the SC based its determination of
the existence of a partnership based purely on circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances only tend to show that Tan Eng Kee was involved in the
operations of the business, but in what capacity is unclear.

Ma’am’s dissent: the Court failed to take into consideration that the brothers
pooled their resources into the business and shared in the profits. The Court
should also have considered that maybe the reason why their was no
demand for accounting was because they were brothers. There is a
possibility in this case that there was a partnership but an informal one
considering that all the elements of partnership are present.

You might also like