lim tong lim vs. philippine fishing gear industries, inc

7/25/2019 Lim Tong Lim vs. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lim-tong-lim-vs-philippine-fishing-gear-industries-inc 1/11

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 136448. November 3, 1999]

LIM TONG LIM, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR

IN!STRIES, IN"., respondent .

E " I S I O N

PANGANI#AN, J .$

A partnership may be deemed to exist among parties who agree to borrow money to

pursue a business and to divide the profits or osses that may arise therefrom! even if it isshown that they have not "ontributed any "apita of their own to a #"ommon fund$# Their

"ontribution may be in the form of "redit or industry! not ne"essariy "ash or fixed

assets$ %eing partners! they are a iabe for debts in"urred by or on behaf of the

partnership$ The iabiity for a "ontra"t entered into on behaf of an unin"orporatedasso"iation or ostensibe "orporation may ie in a person who may not have dire"ty

transa"ted on its behaf! but reaped benefits from that "ontra"t$

T%e "&'e

In the &etition for Review on Certiorari before us! 'im Tong 'im assais the November ()! *++, De"ision of the -ourt of Appeas in -A./R -V 0*011! 2*3 whi"h disposed as

foows4

WHEREFORE, [there being] no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is

hereby affirmed.[2]

The de"reta portion of the 5ue6on -ity Regiona Tria -ourt 7RT-8 ruing! whi"h

was affirmed by the -A! reads as foows4

WHEREFORE, the Court rules:

1. That plaintiff is entitled to the writ of preliminary attachment issued by this

Court on September 20, 1990;

2. That defendants are jointly liable to plaintiff for the following amounts,

subject to the modifications as hereinafter made by reason of the special and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/136448.htm#_edn1






unique facts and circumstances and the proceedings that transpired during the

trial of this case;

a. P532,045.00 representing [the] unpaid purchase price of the fishing nets

covered by the Agreement plus P68,000.00 representing the unpaid price of the

floats not covered by said Agreement;

b. 12% interest per annum counted from date of plaintiffs invoices and

computed on their respective amounts as follows:

i. Accrued interest of P73,221.00 on Invoice No. 14407 for P385,377.80 dated

February 9, 1990;

ii. Accrued interest of P27,904.02 on Invoice No. 14413 for P146,868.00 dated

February 13, 1990;

iii. Accrued interest of P12,920.00 on Invoice No. 14426 for P68,000.00 dated

February 19, 1990;

c. P50,000.00 as and for attorneys fees, plus P8,500.00 representing P500.00

per appearance in court;

d. P65,000.00 representing P5,000.00 monthly rental for storage charges on the

nets counted from September 20, 1990 (date of attachment) to September 12,

1991 (date of auction sale);

e. Cost of suit.

With respect to the joint liability of defendants for the principal obligation or

for the unpaid price of nets and floats in the amount of P532,045.00

and P68,000.00, respectively, or for the total amount of P600,045.00, this Court

noted that these items were attached to guarantee any judgment that may be

rendered in favor of the plaintiff but, upon agreement of the parties, and, to

avoid further deterioration of the nets during the pendency of this case, it was

ordered sold at public auction for not less than P900,000.00 for which theplaintiff was the sole and winning bidder. The proceeds of the sale paid for by

plaintiff was deposited in court. In effect, the amount of P900,000.00 replaced

the attached property as a guaranty for any judgment that plaintiff may be able

to secure in this case with the ownership and possession of the nets and floats

awarded and delivered by the sheriff to plaintiff as the highest bidder in the

public auction sale. It has also been noted that ownership of the nets [was]



retained by the plaintiff until full payment [was] made as stipulated in the

invoices; hence, in effect, the plaintiff attached its own properties. It [was] for

this reason also that this Court earlier ordered the attachment bond filed by

plaintiff to guaranty damages to defendants to be cancelled and for

the P900,000.00 cash bidded and paid for by plaintiff to serve as its bond in

favor of defendants.

From the foregoing, it would appear therefore that whatever judgment the

plaintiff may be entitled to in this case will have to be satisfied from the

amount of P900,000.00 as this amount replaced the attached nets and

floats. Considering, however, that the total judgment obligation as computed

above would amount to only P840,216.92, it would be inequitable, unfair and

unjust to award the excess to the defendants who are not entitled to damages

and who did not put up a single centavo to raise the amount of P900,000.00

aside from the fact that they are not the owners of the nets and floats. For thisreason, the defendants are hereby relieved from any and all liabilities arising

from the monetary judgment obligation enumerated above and for plaintiff to

retain possession and ownership of the nets and floats and for the

reimbursement of the P900,000.00 deposited by it with the Clerk of Court.

SO ORDERED. [3]

T%e F&()'

On behaf of #O"ean 5uest 9ishing -orporation!# Antonio -hua and &eter :aoentered into a -ontra"t dated 9ebruary 1! *++;! for the pur"hase of fishing nets of various

si6es from the &hiippine 9ishing /ear Industries! In"$ 7herein respondent8$ They "aimed

that they were engaged in a business venture with &etitioner 'im Tong 'im! whohowever was not a signatory to the agreement$ The tota pri"e of the nets amounted

to&<=(!;0<$ 9our hundred pie"es of foats worth &),!;;; were aso sod to the

-orporation$203

The buyers! however! faied to pay for the fishing nets and the foats> hen"e! privaterespondent fied a "oe"tion suit against -hua! :ao and &etitioner 'im Tong 'im with a

prayer for a writ of preiminary atta"hment$The suit was brought against the three in their "apa"ities as genera partners! on the aegation that O"ean 5uest 9ishing -orporationwas a nonexistent "orporation as shown by a -ertifi"ation from the Se"urities and

?x"hange -ommission$2<3 On September (;! *++;! the ower "ourt issued a @rit of

&reiminary Atta"hment! whi"h the sheriff enfor"ed by atta"hing the fishing nets on board F/B Lourdes whi"h was then do"ed at the 9isheries &ort! Navotas! Betro Bania$










Instead of answering the -ompaint! -hua fied a Banifestation admitting his

iabiity and reCuesting a reasonabe time within whi"h to pay$ He aso turned over to

respondent some of the nets whi"h were in his possession$ &eter :ao fied an Answer!after whi"h he was deemed to have waived his right to "ross.examine witnesses and to

present eviden"e on his behaf! be"ause of his faiure to appear in subseCuent

hearings$ 'im Tong 'im! on the other hand! fied an Answer with -ounter"aim and-ross"aim and moved for the ifting of the @rit of Atta"hment$2)3 The tria "ourt

maintained the @rit! and upon motion of private respondent! ordered the sae of the

fishing nets at a pubi" au"tion$ &hiippine 9ishing /ear Industries won the bidding anddeposited with the said "ourt the saes pro"eeds of &+;;!;;;$213

On November *,! *++(! the tria "ourt rendered its De"ision! ruing that &hiippine

9ishing /ear Industries was entited to the @rit of Atta"hment and that -hua! :ao and

'im! as genera partners! were ointy iabe to pay respondent$ 2,3

The tria "ourt rued that a partnership among 'im! -hua and :ao existed based 7*8

on the testimonies of the witnesses presented and 7(8 on a -ompromise Agreement

exe"uted by the three2+3

in -ivi -ase No$ *0+(.BN whi"h -hua and :ao had broughtagainst 'im in the RT- of Baabon! %ran"h 1(! for 7a8 a de"aration of nuity of

"ommer"ia do"uments> 7b8 a reformation of "ontra"ts> 7"8 a de"aration of ownership of

fishing boats> 7d8 an inun"tion and 7e8 damages$2*;3 The -ompromise Agreement

provided4

a) That the parties plaintiffs & Lim Tong Lim agree to have the four (4) vessels

sold in the amount of P5,750,000.00 including the fishing

net. This P5,750,000.00 shall be applied as full payment for P3,250,000.00 in

favor of JL Holdings Corporation and/or Lim Tong Lim;

b) If the four (4) vessel[s] and the fishing net will be sold at a higher price

than P5,750,000.00 whatever will be the excess will be divided into 3: 1/3 Lim

Tong Lim; 1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao;

c) If the proceeds of the sale the vessels will be less than P5,750,000.00 whatever the

deficiency shall be shouldered and paid to JL Holding Corporation by 1/3 Lim Tong Lim;

1/3 Antonio Chua; 1/3 Peter Yao.[11]

The tria "ourt noted that the -ompromise Agreement was sient as to the nature of their obigations! but that oint iabiity "oud be presumed from the eCua distribution of

the profit and oss$2*(3

'im appeaed to the -ourt of Appeas 7-A8 whi"h! as aready stated! affirmed theRT-$

Ruing of the -ourt of Appeas

















In affirming the tria "ourt! the -A hed that petitioner was a partner of -hua and :ao

in a fishing business and may thus be hed iabe as a su"h for the fishing nets and foats

pur"hased by and for the use of the partnership$ The appeate "ourt rued4

The evidence establishes that all the defendants including herein appellant Lim Tong Lim

undertook a partnership for a specific undertaking, that is for commercial fishing x xx. Obviously, the ultimate undertaking of the defendants was to divide the profits among

themselves which is what a partnership essentially is x x x. By a contract of partnership,

two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a

common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves (Article 1767,

New Civil Code).[13]

Hen"e! petitioner brought this re"ourse before this -ourt$2*03

T%e I''*e'

In his &etition and Bemorandum! 'im ass this -ourt to reverse the assaied

De"ision on the foowing grounds4

I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING, BASED ON A

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT THAT CHUA, YAO AND PETITIONER

LIM ENTERED INTO IN A SEPARATE CASE, THAT A PARTNERSHIP

AGREEMENT EXISTED AMONG THEM.

II SINCE IT WAS ONLY CHUA WHO REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS

ACTING FOR OCEAN QUEST FISHING CORPORATION WHEN HE

BOUGHT THE NETS FROM PHILIPPINE FISHING, THE COURT OF

APPEALS WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN IMPUTING LIABILITY TO

PETITIONER LIM AS WELL.

III THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ORDERED THE SEIZURE AND

ATTACHMENT OF PETITIONER LIMS GOODS.

In determining whether petitioner may be hed iabe for the fishing nets and foats pur"hased from respondent! the -ourt must resove this ey issue4 whether by their a"ts!

'im! -hua and :ao "oud be deemed to have entered into a partnership$

T%+' "o*r)' R*+-

The &etition is devoid of merit$







F+r') &-/ Se(o-/ I''*e'$ Existence of a Partnership and Petitioner's Liability

In arguing that he shoud not be hed iabe for the eCuipment pur"hased from

respondent! petitioner "ontroverts the -A finding that a partnership existed between him!&eter :ao and Antonio -hua$ He asserts that the -A based its finding on the -ompromise

Agreement aone$ 9urthermore! he dis"aims any dire"t parti"ipation in the pur"hase of the nets! aeging that the negotiations were "ondu"ted by -hua and :ao ony! and that he

has not even met the representatives of the respondent "ompany$ &etitioner further arguesthat he was a essor! not a partner! of -hua and :ao! for the #-ontra"t of 'ease# dated

9ebruary *! *++;! showed that he had merey eased to the two the main asset of the

purported partnership .. the fishing boat F/B Lourdes. The ease was for six months! witha monthy renta of &=1!<;; pus (< per"ent of the gross "at"h of the boat$

@e are not persuaded by the arguments of petitioner$ The fa"ts as found by the two

ower "ourts "eary showed that there existed a partnership among -hua! :ao and him! pursuant to Arti"e *1)1 of the -ivi -ode whi"h provides4

Article 1767 - By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind

themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with

the intention of dividing the profits among themselves.

Spe"ifi"ay! both ower "ourts rued that a partnership among the three existed based

on the foowing fa"tua findings42*<3

(1) That Petitioner Lim Tong Lim requested Peter Yao who was engaged in

commercial fishing to join him, while Antonio Chua was already Yaos partner;

(2) That after convening for a few times, Lim Chua, and Yao verbally agreed to

acquire two fishing boats, the FB Lourdes and the FB Nelson for the sum of

P3.35 million;

(3) That they borrowed P3.25 million from Jesus Lim, brother of Petitioner Lim

Tong Lim, to finance the venture.

(4) That they bought the boats from CMF Fishing Corporation, which executed

a Deed of Sale over these two (2) boats in favor of Petitioner Lim Tong Lim

only to serve as security for the loan extended by Jesus Lim;

(5) That Lim, Chua and Yao agreed that the refurbishing , re-equipping,

repairing, dry docking and other expenses for the boats would be shouldered by

Chua and Yao;





(6) That because of the unavailability of funds, Jesus Lim again extended a loan

to the partnership in the amount of P1 million secured by a check, because of

which, Yao and Chua entrusted the ownership papers of two other boats,

Chuas FB Lady Anne Mel and Yaos FB Tracy to Lim Tong Lim.

(7) That in pursuance of the business agreement, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua

bought nets from Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, in behalf of "Ocean

Quest Fishing Corporation," their purported business name.

(8) That subsequently, Civil Case No. 1492-MN was filed in the Malabon RTC,

Branch 72 by Antonio Chua and Peter Yao against Lim Tong Lim for (a)

declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) reformation of contracts;

(c) declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (4) injunction; and (e) damages.

(9) That the case was amicably settled through a Compromise Agreementexecuted between the parties-litigants the terms of which are already

enumerated above.

9rom the fa"tua findings of both ower "ourts! it is "ear that -hua! :ao and 'im had

de"ided to engage in a fishing business! whi"h they started by buying boats worth &=$=<

miion! finan"ed by a oan se"ured from Eesus 'im who was petitioners brother$ In their -ompromise Agreement! they subseCuenty reveaed their intention to pay the oan with

the pro"eeds of the sae of the boats! and to divide eCuay among them the ex"ess or

oss$ These boats! the pur"hase and the repair of whi"h were finan"ed with borrowedmoney! fe under the term "ommon fund under Arti"e *1)1$ The "ontribution to su"h

fund need not be "ash or fixed assets> it "oud be an intangibe ie "redit or industry$ That the parties agreed that any oss or profit from the sae and operation of the

boats woud be divided eCuay among them aso shows that they had indeed formed a partnership$

Boreover! it is "ear that the partnership extended not ony to the pur"hase of the

boat! but aso to that of the nets and the foats$ The fishing nets and the foats! bothessentia to fishing! were obviousy a"Cuired in furtheran"e of their business$ It woud

have been in"on"eivabe for 'im to invove himsef so mu"h in buying the boat but not in

the a"Cuisition of the aforesaid eCuipment! without whi"h the business "oud not have pro"eeded$

/iven the pre"eding fa"ts! it is "ear that there was! among petitioner! -hua and :ao!a partnership engaged in the fishing business$ They pur"hased the boats! whi"h

"onstituted the main assets of the partnership! and they agreed that the pro"eeds from thesaes and operations thereof woud be divided among them$

@e stress that under Rue 0<! a petition for review ie the present "ase shoud

invove ony Cuestions of aw$ Thus! the foregoing fa"tua findings of the RT- and the-A are binding on this -ourt! absent any "ogent proof that the present a"tion is embra"ed



by one of the ex"eptions to the rue$2*)3 In assaiing the fa"tua findings of the two ower

"ourts! petitioner effe"tivey goes beyond the bounds of a petition for review under Rue

0<$

Compromise Agreement Not the ole !asis of Partnership

&etitioner argues that the appeate "ourts soe basis for assuming the existen"e of a

partnership was the -ompromise Agreement$ He aso "aims that the settement was

entered into ony to end the dispute among them! but not to adudi"ate their preexistingrights and obigations$ His arguments are baseess$ The Agreement was but anembodiment of the relationship extant among the parties prior to its execution.

A proper adudi"ation of "aimants rights mandates that "ourts must review and

thoroughy appraise a reevant fa"ts$ %oth ower "ourts have done so and have found!"orre"ty! a preexisting partnership among the parties$ In impying that the ower "ourts

have de"ided on the basis of one pie"e of do"ument aone! petitioner fais to appre"iatethat the -A and the RT- deved into the history of the do"ument and expored a the possibe "onseCuentia "ombinations in harmony with aw! ogi" and fairness$ Veriy! the

two ower "ourts fa"tua findings mentioned above nuified petitioners argument that the

existen"e of a partnership was based ony on the -ompromise Agreement$

Petitioner "as a Partner, Not a Lessor

@e are not "onvin"ed by petitioners argument that he was merey the essor of the boats to -hua and :ao! not a partner in the fishing venture$ His argument aegedy finds

support in the -ontra"t of 'ease and the registration papers showing that he was the

owner of the boats! in"uding F/B Lourdes where the nets were found$

His aegation defies ogi"$ In effe"t! he woud ie this -ourt to beieve that he

"onsented to the sae of his own boats to pay a debt of Chua and Yao! with the ex"ess of

the pro"eeds to be divided among the three of them$ No essor woud do what petitioner

did$ Indeed! his "onsent to the sae proved that there was a preexisting partnership amonga three$

Veriy! as found by the ower "ourts! petitioner entered into a business agreement

with -hua and :ao! in whi"h debts were undertaen in order to finan"e the a"Cuisitionand the upgrading of the vesses whi"h woud be used in their fishing business$ The sae

of the boats! as we as the division among the three of the baan"e remaining after the

payment of their oans! proves beyond "avi that F/B Lourdes! though registered in hisname! was not his own property but an asset of the partnership$ It is not un"ommon to

register the properties a"Cuired from a oan in the name of the person the ender trusts!

who in this "ase is the petitioner himsef$ After a! he is the brother of the "reditor! Eesus

'im$





@e stress that it is unreasonabe indeed! it is absurd .. for petitioner to se his

property to pay a debt he did not in"ur! if the reationship among the three of them was

merey that of essor.essee! instead of partners$

Corporation by Estoppel

&etitioner argues that under the do"trine of "orporation by estoppe! iabiity "an be

imputed ony to -hua and :ao! and not to him$ Again! we disagree$

Se"tion (* of the -orporation -ode of the &hiippines provides4

Sec. 21. Corporation by estoppel. - All persons who assume to act as a

corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as

general partners for all debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a

result thereof: Provided however, That when any such ostensible corporation is

sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed

by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate

personality.

One who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as such, cannot

resist performance thereof on the ground that there was in fact no corporation.

Thus! even if the ostensibe "orporate entity is proven to be egay nonexistent! a party may be estopped from denying its "orporate existen"e$ The reason behind this

do"trine is obvious . an unin"orporated asso"iation has no personaity and woud be

in"ompetent to a"t and appropriate for itsef the power and attributes of a "orporation as provided by aw> it "annot "reate agents or "onfer authority on another to a"t in its behaf>

thus! those who a"t or purport to a"t as its representatives or agents do so without

authority and at their own ris$ And as it is an eementary prin"ipe of aw that a personwho a"ts as an agent without authority or without a prin"ipa is himsef regarded as the

prin"ipa! possessed of a the right and sube"t to a the iabiities of a prin"ipa! a person

a"ting or purporting to a"t on behaf of a "orporation whi"h has no vaid existen"e

assumes su"h privieges and obigations and be"omes personay iabe for "ontra"tsentered into or for other a"ts performed as su"h agent$2*13

The do"trine of "orporation by estoppe may appy to the aeged "orporation and to

a third party$ In the first instan"e! an unin"orporated asso"iation! whi"h represented itsef to be a "orporation! wi be estopped from denying its "orporate "apa"ity in a suit against

it by a third person who reied in good faith on su"h representation$ It "annot aege a"

of personaity to be sued to evade its responsibiity for a "ontra"t it entered into and byvirtue of whi"h it re"eived advantages and benefits$

On the other hand! a third party who !nowing an association to be unincorporated

nonetheless treated it as a corporation and recei"ed benefits from it may be barred from

denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the alleged corporation. In su"h





"ase! a those who benefited from the transa"tion made by the ostensibe "orporation!

despite nowedge of its ega defe"ts! may be hed iabe for "ontra"ts they impiedy

assented to or too advantage of$

There is no dispute that the respondent! &hiippine 9ishing /ear Industries! is entited

to be paid for the nets it sod$ The ony Cuestion here is whether petitioner shoud be hed

ointy2*,3 iabe with -hua and :ao$&etitioner "ontests su"h iabiity! insisting that onythose who deat in the name of the ostensibe "orporation shoud be hed iabe$ Sin"e his

name does not appear on any of the "ontra"ts and sin"e he never dire"ty transa"ted with

the respondent "orporation! ergo! he "annot be hed iabe$

FnCuestionaby! petitioner benefited from the use of the nets found inside F/B Lourdes the boat whi"h has earier been proven to be an asset of the partnership$ He in

fa"t Cuestions the atta"hment of the nets! be"ause the @rit has effe"tivey stopped his use

of the fishing vesse$

It is diffi"ut to disagree with the RT- and the -A that 'im! -hua and :ao de"ided to

form a "orporation$ Athough it was never egay formed for unnown reasons! this fa"t

aone does not pre"ude the iabiities of the three as "ontra"ting parties in representationof it$ -eary! under the aw on estoppe! those a"ting on behaf of a "orporation and those

benefited by it! nowing it to be without vaid existen"e! are hed iabe as genera

partners$

Te"hni"ay! it is true that petitioner did not directly act on behaf of the"orporation$ #owe"er ha"ing reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by persons

with whom he pre"iously had an existing relationship he is deemed to be part of said

association and is co"ered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. @ereiterate the ruing of the -ourt in Alonso ". $illamor 42*+3

A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooledand skilled in the subtle art of movement and position , entraps and destroys the

other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays

before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and

indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that

justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a

rapiers thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice

and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration

from courts. There should be no vested rights in technicalities.

T%+r/ I''*e$ #alidity of Attachment

9inay! petitioner "aims that the @rit of Atta"hment was impropery issued against

the nets$ @e agree with the -ourt of Appeas that this issue is now moot and

a"ademi"$ As previousy dis"ussed! F/B Lourdes was an asset of the partnership and that

it was pa"ed in the name of petitioner! ony to assure payment of the debt he and his







partners owed$ The nets and the foats were spe"ifi"ay manufa"tured and taior.made

a""ording to their own design! and were bought and used in the fishing venture they

agreed upon$ Hen"e! the issuan"e of the @rit to assure the payment of the pri"e stipuatedin the invoi"es is proper$ %esides! by spe"ifi" agreement! ownership of the nets remained

with Respondent &hiippine 9ishing /ear! unti fu payment thereof$

0HEREFORE! the &etition is %&'(&% and the assaiedDe"ision AFF()*&%$ -osts against petitioner$

SO ORERE.

*elo +Chairman, -urisima and onaga0)eyes 11. "on"ur .

$itug 1. &s$ see "on"urring opinion$

2*3 &enned by 1 $ &ortia Aino.Horma"hueos> with the "on"urren"e of 11 $ %uenaventura E$ /uerrero! Division "hairman! and &resbitero E$ Veas"o Er$! member$

2(3 -A De"ision! p$ *(> rollo! p$ =)$

2=3 RT- De"ision penned by Eudge Baximiano -$ Asun"ion! pp$ **.*(> rollo! pp$ 0,.0+$

203 -A De"ision! pp$ *.(> rollo! pp$ (<.()$

2<3 (bid.! p$ (> rollo! p$ ()$

2)3 RT- De"ision! p$ (> rollo! p$ =+$

213 &etition! p$ 0> rollo! p$ **$

2,3 (bid.

2+3 RT- De"ision! pp$ ).1> rollo! pp$ 0=.00$

2*;3 Respondents Bemorandum! pp$ <! ,> rollo! pp$ *;1! *;+$

2**3 -A De"ision! pp$ +.*;> rollo! pp$ ==.=0$

2*(3 RT- De"ision! p$ *;> rollo! p$ 01$

2*=3 (bid.

2*03 This "ase was deemed submitted for resoution on August *;! *+++! when this -ourt re"eived petitioners Bemorandum signed by Atty$ Roberto A$ Abad$ Respondents Bemorandum

signed by Atty$ %enamin S$ %enito was fied earier on Euy (1! *+++$

2*<3 Nos$ *.1 are from -A De"ision! p$ + 7rollo! p$ ==8> No$ , is from RT- De"ision! p$ < 7rollo! p$ 0(8> and No$ + is from -A De"ision! pp$ +.*; 7 rollo! pp$ ==.=08$

2*)3 See 9uentes v$ -ourt of Appeas! (), S-RA 1;=! 9ebruary ()! *++1$

2*13 Savatierra ". /aritos! *;= S-RA 1<1! Bay (=! *+<,! per 9eix! 1 $> "iting 9ay ". Nobe! 1 -ushing 2Bass$3 *,,$

2*,3 The iabiity is oint if it is not spe"ifi"ay stated that it is soidary! Baramba ". 'o6ano! *() &hi ,==! Eune (+! *+)1! per Baainta! 1 $ See aso Arti"e *(;1 of the -ivi -ode!

whi"h provides4 The "on"urren"e of two or more "reditors or of two or more debtors in one 2and3 the same obigation does not impy that ea"h one of the former has a right to demand! or

that ea"h one of the atter is bound to render! entire "ompian"e with the prestation$ There is a soidary iabiity ony when the obigation expressy so states! or when the aw or the nature

of the obigation reCuires soidarity$

2*+3 *) &hi$ =*<! Euy ()! *+*;! per Boreand! 1 $

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/136448_vitug.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/136448.htm#_ednref1






































http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/136448_vitug.htm




















lim tong lim vs. philippine fishing gear industries, inc

Documents