d2015member

Fortunato Recentes, Benjamin de Gracia, and Ramona Merced v. CFI and Concepcion Zosa (1983) Abad Santos, J. Zosa filed a complaint in the CFI against Recentes, de Gracia, and Merced for accounting and payment of money alleged to be due to her as partner in the Ports and Arrastre Service. o The defendants answered that accounting and payment had already been made. 2 yrs later, the case was still not terminated. Zosa asked the court to appoint Merced as the receiver of the partnership alleging that assets of the partnership were being squandered by mismanagement. Merced was appointed receiver. Subsequently, Recentes and de Gracia filed a motion to annul and dissolve the receivership because the partnership no longer exists because its 10-yr term provided in the partnership agreement had already expired Judge Mendoza granted this motion but Judge Buissan, who succeeded Judge Mendoza, reconsidered and reinstated the receivership. o This was premised on the fact that partnership was automatically dissolved after 10 yrs. o Ordinarily, since defendants never rendered an accounting for the purpose of dissolving, the partnership still continuously exists. However, defendants de Gracia and Recentes formed another partnership and continued the business that was conducted by the former partnership. o The new partnership is doing business with the clientele of the old partnership. o Only plaintiff Concepcion Zosa was not included in the new partnership. The order of the of the judge directed that the management of the partnership remain with the officers and that Merced as receiver will only receive the net profit of the partnership and to keep each income, account for them when required by this court until such time as the same win be distributed to those who may be entitled to it. o Also directed receiver to submit an accounting of the partnership affairs

Issue/Held: (Can the judge do this?--- YES) W/N there was GAD in the issuance of the orders? --- NO Ratio: NCC 1829 says: On dissolution the partnership is terminated, but continues until the winding up of partnership affairs is completed. Obviously, all the questioned orders are intended to wind up the partnership affairs in an orderly manner and to protect the interest of the plaintiff (herein respondent). The judge not only had jurisdiction to issue the orders, he also acted prudently in the premises. Petition denied.