Facts:
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 on 4 August 1948. The SEC records show that there were
several subsequent amendments to the articles of partnership to change the firm
name. On 19 December 1980, Joaquin L. Misa, Jesus B. Bito, and Mariano M.
Lozada associated themselves together, as senior partners with Gregorio F.
Ortega, Tomas O. del Castillo, Jr., and Benjamin Bacorro, as junior partners.
On February 17, 1988, petitioner-appellant wrote the respondents-appellees a
letter stating his withdrawal and retirement from the firm of Bito, Misa and
Lozada and requested to make proper liquidation including his interest to the
two floors of the building.
The
petitioner led with this Commission's Securities Investigation and Clearing
Department (SICD) a petition for dissolution and liquidation of partnership
which resulted to respondents-appellees filing their opposition. The Hearing Officer
held that the withdrawal of Atty. Misa had dissolved the partnership of Bito,
Misa and Lozada. A Motion for Reconsideration was sought but during the
pendency of the case in the CA, Bito and Lozada died which prompted Misa to renew
his application for receivership.
Issues:
Whether
or not CA has erred in holding that the partnership of Bito, Misa & Lozada
is a partnership at will;
Whether
or not CA has erred in holding
that the withdrawal of private respondent dissolved the partnership regardless
of his good or bad faith; and
Whether
or not CA has erred in holding that private respondent's demand for the
dissolution of the partnership so that he can get a physical partition of
partnership was not made in bad faith.
Held:
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 constancy of that mutual
resolve, along with each partner's capability to give it, and the absence of a
cause for dissolution provided by the law itself. Any one of the partners may,
at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will.
Neither
would the presence of a period for its specific duration or the statement of a
particular purpose for its creation prevent the dissolution of any partnership
by an act or will of a partner. Among partners, mutual agency arises and the
doctrine of delectus personae allows
them to have the power, although not necessarily the right, to dissolve the
partnership.
The
Court we accord to the CA and the respondent Commission on their common factual
finding, that Attorney Misa did not act in bad faith. Public respondents viewed
his withdrawal to have been spurred by "interpersonal conflict" among
the partners. It would not be right to let any of the partners remain in the
partnership under such an atmosphere of animosity; certainly, not against their
will. For as long as the reason for withdrawal of a partner is not contrary to
the dictates of justice and fairness, nor for the purpose of unduly visiting
harm and damage upon the partnership, bad faith cannot be said to characterize
the act.
No comments:
Post a Comment