Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17


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. Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession. (1665a) Art. 1768. The partnership has a judicial personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners, even in case of failure to comply with the requirements of Article 1772, first paragraph. (n) Art. 1769. In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply: (1) Except as provided by Article 1825, persons who are not partners as to each other are not partners as to third persons; (2) Co-ownership or co-possession does not of itself establish a partnership, whether such-co-owners or co-possessors do or do not share any profits made by the use of the property; (3) The sharing of gross returns does not of itself establish a partnership, whether or not the persons sharing them have a joint or common right or interest in any property from which the returns are derived; (4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, but no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment: (a) As a debt by installments or otherwise; (b) As wages of an employee or rent to a landlord; (c) As an annuity to a widow or representative of a deceased partner; (d) As interest on a loan, though the amount of payment vary with the profits of the business; (e) As the consideration for the sale of a goodwill of a business or other property by installments or otherwise. (n) Art. 1770. A partnership must have a lawful object or purpose, and must be established for the common benefit or interest of the partners. When an unlawful partnership is dissolved by a judicial decree, the profits shall be confiscated in favor of the State, without prejudice to the provisions of the Penal Code governing the confiscation of the instruments and effects of a crime. (1666a) Art. 1771. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real rights are contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. (1667a) Art. 1772. Every contract of partnership having a capital of three thousand pesos or more, in money or property, shall appear in a public instrument, which must be recorded in the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Failure to comply with the requirements of the preceding paragraph shall not affect the liability of the partnership and the members thereof to third persons. (n) Art. 1773. A contract of partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if an inventory of said property is not made, signed by the parties, and attached to the public instrument. (1668a)

Art. 1774. Any immovable property or an interest therein may be acquired in the partnership name. Title so acquired can be conveyed only in the partnership name. (n) Art. 1775. Associations and societies, whose articles are kept secret among the members, and wherein any one of the members may contract in his own name with third persons, shall have no juridical personality, and shall be governed by the provisions relating to coownership. (1669) Art. 1776. As to its object, a partnership is either universal or particular. As regards the liability of the partners, a partnership may be general or limited. (1671a) Art. 1777. A universal partnership may refer to all the present property or to all the profits. (1672) Art. 1778. A partnership of all present property is that in which the partners contribute all the property which actually belongs to them to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the same among themselves, as well as all the profits which they may acquire therewith. (1673) Art. 1779. In a universal partnership of all present property, the property which belongs to each of the partners at the time of the constitution of the partnership, becomes the common property of all the partners, as well as all the profits which they may acquire therewith. A stipulation for the common enjoyment of any other profits may also be made; but the property which the partners may acquire subsequently by inheritance, legacy, or donation cannot be included in such stipulation, except the fruits thereof. (1674a) Art. 1780. A universal partnership of profits comprises all that the partners may acquire by their industry or work during the existence of the partnership. Movable or immovable property which each of the partners may possess at the time of the celebration of the contract shall continue to pertain exclusively to each, only the usufruct passing to the partnership. (1675) Art. 1781. Articles of universal partnership, entered into without specification of its nature, only constitute a universal partnership of profits. (1676) Art. 1782. Persons who are prohibited from giving each other any donation or advantage cannot enter into universal partnership. (1677) Art. 1783. A particular partnership has for its object determinate things, their use or fruits, or specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation. (1678) LIM TONG LIM, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE FISHING GEAR INDUSTRIES, INC., respondent. DECISION PANGANIBAN, 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 losses that may arise therefrom, even if it is shown that they have not contributed any capital of their own to a "common fund." Their contribution may be in the form of credit or industry, not necessarily cash or fixed assets. Being partners, they are all liable for debts incurred by or on behalf of the partnership. The liability for a contract entered into on behalf of an unincorporated association or ostensible corporation may lie in a person who may not have directly transacted on its behalf, but reaped benefits from that contract.
The Case

In the Petition for Review on Certiorari before us, Lim Tong Lim assails the November 26, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV 41477,which disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, [there being] no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby affirmed." The decretal portion of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling, which was affirmed by the CA, reads as follows: "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 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 the plaintiff 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 this reason, 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." The Facts On behalf of "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation," Antonio Chua and Peter Yao entered into a Contract dated February 7, 1990, for the purchase of fishing nets of various sizes from the Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, Inc. (herein respondent). They claimed that they were engaged in a business venture with Petitioner Lim Tong Lim, who however was not a signatory to the agreement. The total price of the nets amounted to P532,045. Four hundred pieces of floats worth P68,000 were also sold to the Corporation. The buyers, however, failed to pay for the fishing nets and the floats; hence, private respondent filed a collection suit against Chua, Yao and Petitioner Lim Tong Lim with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment. The suit was brought against the three in their capacities as general partners, on the allegation that "Ocean Quest Fishing Corporation" was a nonexistent corporation as shown by a Certification from the Securities and Exchange Commission. On September 20, 1990, the lower court issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment, which the sheriff enforced by attaching the fishing nets on board F/B Lourdes which was then docked at the Fisheries Port, Navotas, Metro Manila. Instead of answering the Complaint, Chua filed a Manifestation admitting his liability and requesting a reasonable time within which to pay. He also turned over to respondent some of the nets which were in his possession. Peter Yao filed an Answer, after which he was deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence on his behalf, because of his failure to appear in subsequent hearings. Lim Tong Lim, on the other hand, filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim and moved for the lifting of the Writ of Attachment. The trial court maintained the Writ, and upon motion of private respondent, ordered the sale of the fishing nets at a public auction. Philippine Fishing Gear Industries won the bidding and deposited with the said court the sales proceeds of P900,000. On November 18, 1992, the trial court rendered its Decision, ruling that Philippine Fishing Gear Industries was entitled to the Writ of Attachment and that Chua, Yao and Lim, as general partners, were jointly liable to pay respondent.

The trial court ruled that a partnership among Lim, Chua and Yao existed based (1) on the testimonies of the witnesses presented and (2) on a Compromise Agreement executed by the thre in Civil Case No. 1492-MN which Chua and Yao had brought against Lim in the RTC of Malabon, Branch 72, for (a) a declaration of nullity of commercial documents; (b) a reformation of contracts; (c) a declaration of ownership of fishing boats; (d) an injunction and (e) damages.The Compromise Agreement provided: "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." The trial court noted that the Compromise Agreement was silent as to the nature of their obligations, but that joint liability could be presumed from the equal distribution of the profit and loss. Lim appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, as already stated, affirmed the RTC. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In affirming the trial court, the CA held that petitioner was a partner of Chua and Yao in a fishing business and may thus be held liable as a such for the fishing nets and floats purchased by and for the use of the partnership. The appellate court ruled: "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 x x. 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). Hence, petitioner brought this recourse before this Court. The Issues In his Petition and Memorandum, Lim asks this Court to reverse the assailed Decision on the following grounds: "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 held liable for the fishing nets and floats purchased from respondent, the Court must resolve this key issue: whether by their acts, Lim, Chua and Yao could be deemed to have entered into a partnership. This Courts Ruling The Petition is devoid of merit. First and Second Issues: Existence of a Partnership and Petitioner's Liability In arguing that he should not be held liable for the equipment purchased from respondent, petitioner controverts the CA finding that a partnership existed between him, Peter Yao and Antonio Chua. He asserts that the CA based its finding on the Compromise Agreement alone. Furthermore, he disclaims any direct participation in the purchase of the nets, alleging that the negotiations were conducted by Chua and Yao only, and that he has not even met the representatives of the respondent company. Petitioner further argues that he was a lessor, not a partner, of Chua and Yao, for the "Contract of Lease" dated February 1, 1990, showed that he had merely leased to the two the main asset of the purported partnership -- the fishing boat F/B Lourdes. The lease was for six months, with a monthly rental of P37,500 plus 25 percent of the gross catch of the boat. We are not persuaded by the arguments of petitioner. The facts as found by the two lower courts clearly showed that there existed a partnership among Chua, Yao and him, pursuant to Article 1767 of the Civil Code which provides: "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." Specifically, both lower courts ruled that a partnership among the three existed based on the following factual findings: (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 Agreement executed between the partieslitigants the terms of which are already enumerated above. From the factual findings of both lower courts, it is clear that Chua, Yao and Lim had decided to engage in a fishing business, which they started by buying boats worth P3.35 million, financed by a loan secured from Jesus Lim who was petitioners brother. In their Compromise Agreement, they subsequently revealed their intention to pay the loan with the proceeds of the sale of the boats, and to divide equally among them the excess or loss. These boats, the purchase and the repair of which were financed with borrowed money, fell under the term "common fund" under Article 1767. The contribution to such fund need not be cash or fixed assets; it could be an intangible like credit or industry. That the parties agreed that any loss or profit from the sale and operation of the boats would be divided equally among them also shows that they had indeed formed a partnership. Moreover, it is clear that the partnership extended not only to the purchase of the boat, but also to that of the nets and the floats. The fishing nets and the floats, both essential to fishing, were obviously acquired in furtherance of their business. It would have been inconceivable for Lim to involve himself so much in buying the boat but not in the acquisition of the aforesaid equipment, without which the business could not have proceeded. Given the preceding facts, it is clear that there was, among petitioner, Chua and Yao, a partnership engaged in the fishing business. They purchased the boats, which constituted the main assets of the partnership, and they agreed that the proceeds from the sales and operations thereof would be divided among them. We stress that under Rule 45, a petition for review like the present case should involve only questions of law. Thus, the foregoing factual findings of the RTC and the CA are binding on this Court, absent any cogent proof that the present action is embraced by one of the exceptions to the rule. In assailing the factual findings of the two lower courts, petitioner effectively goes beyond the bounds of a petition for review under Rule 45. Compromise Agreement Not the Sole Basis of Partnership Petitioner argues that the appellate courts sole basis for assuming the existence of a partnership was the Compromise Agreement. He also claims that the settlement was entered into only to end the dispute among

them, but not to adjudicate their preexisting rights and obligations. His arguments are baseless. The Agreement was but an embodiment of the relationship extant among the parties prior to its execution. A proper adjudication of claimants rights mandates that courts must review and thoroughly appraise all relevant facts. Both lower courts have done so and have found, correctly, a preexisting partnership among the parties. In implying that the lower courts have decided on the basis of one piece of document alone, petitioner fails to appreciate that the CA and the RTC delved into the history of the document and explored all the possible consequential combinations in harmony with law, logic and fairness. Verily, the two lower courts factual findings mentioned above nullified petitioners argument that the existence of a partnership was based only on the Compromise Agreement. Petitioner Was a Partner, Not a Lessor We are not convinced by petitioners argument that he was merely the lessor of the boats to Chua and Yao, not a partner in the fishing venture. His argument allegedly finds support in the Contract of Lease and the registration papers showing that he was the owner of the boats, including F/B Lourdes where the nets were found. His allegation defies logic. In effect, he would like this Court to believe that he consented to the sale of his own boats to pay a debt of Chua and Yao, with the excess of the proceeds to be divided among the three of them. No lessor would do what petitioner did. Indeed, his consent to the sale proved that there was a preexisting partnership among all three. Verily, as found by the lower courts, petitioner entered into a business agreement with Chua and Yao, in which debts were undertaken in order to finance the acquisition and the upgrading of the vessels which would be used in their fishing business. The sale of the boats, as well as the division among the three of the balance remaining after the payment of their loans, proves beyond cavil that F/B Lourdes, though registered in his name, was not his own property but an asset of the partnership. It is not uncommon to register the properties acquired from a loan in the name of the person the lender trusts, who in this case is the petitioner himself. After all, he is the brother of the creditor, Jesus Lim. We stress that it is unreasonable indeed, it is absurd -- for petitioner to sell his property to pay a debt he did not incur, if the relationship among the three of them was merely that of lessor-lessee, instead of partners. Corporation by Estoppel Petitioner argues that under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel, liability can be imputed only to Chua and Yao, and not to him. Again, we disagree. Section 21 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines provides: "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 ostensible corporate entity is proven to be legally nonexistent, a party may be estopped from denying its corporate existence. "The reason behind this doctrine is obvious - an unincorporated association has no personality and would be incompetent to act and appropriate for itself the power and attributes of a corporation as provided by law; it cannot create agents or confer authority on another to act in its behalf; thus, those who act or purport to act as its representatives or agents do so without authority and at their own risk. And as it is an elementary principle of law that a person who acts as an agent without authority or without a principal is himself regarded as the principal, possessed of all the right and subject to all the liabilities of a principal, a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a corporation which has no valid existence assumes such privileges and obligations and becomes personally liable for contracts entered into or for other acts performed as such agent. The doctrine of corporation by estoppel may apply to the alleged corporation and to a third party. In the first instance, an unincorporated association, which represented itself to be a corporation, will be estopped from denying its corporate capacity in a suit against it by a third person who relied in good faith on such representation. It cannot allege lack of personality to be sued to evade its responsibility for a contract it entered into and by virtue of which it received advantages and benefits. On the other hand, a third party who, knowing an association to be unincorporated, nonetheless treated it as a corporation and received benefits from it, may be barred from denying its corporate existence in a suit brought against the alleged corporation. In such case, all those who benefited from the transaction made by the ostensible corporation, despite knowledge of its legal defects, may be held liable for contracts they impliedly assented to or took advantage of. There is no dispute that the respondent, Philippine Fishing Gear Industries, is entitled to be paid for the nets it sold. The only question here is whether petitioner should be held jointly liable with Chua and Yao. Petitioner contests such liability, insisting that only those who dealt in the name of the ostensible corporation should be held liable. Since his name does not appear on any of the contracts and since he never directly transacted with the respondent corporation, ergo, he cannot be held liable. Unquestionably, petitioner benefited from the use of the nets found inside F/B Lourdes, the boat which has earlier been proven to be an asset of the partnership. He in fact questions the attachment of the nets, because the Writ has effectively stopped his use of the fishing vessel. It is difficult to disagree with the RTC and the CA that Lim, Chua and Yao decided to form a corporation. Although it was never legally formed for unknown reasons, this fact alone does not preclude the liabilities of the three as contracting parties in representation of it. Clearly, under the law on estoppel, those acting on behalf

of a corporation and those benefited by it, knowing it to be without valid existence, are held liable as general partners. Technically, it is true that petitioner did not directly act on behalf of the corporation. However, having reaped the benefits of the contract entered into by persons with whom he previously had an existing relationship, he is deemed to be part of said association and is covered by the scope of the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. We reiterate the ruling of the Court in Alonso v. Villamor: "A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and 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." Third Issue: Validity of Attachment Finally, petitioner claims that the Writ of Attachment was improperly issued against the nets. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this issue is now moot and academic. As previously discussed, F/B Lourdes was an asset of the partnership and that it was placed in the name of petitioner, only to assure payment of the debt he and his partners owed. The nets and the floats were specifically manufactured and tailor-made according to their own design, and were bought and used in the fishing venture they agreed upon. Hence, the issuance of the Writ to assure the payment of the price stipulated in the invoices is proper. Besides, by specific agreement, ownership of the nets remained with Respondent Philippine Fishing Gear, until full payment thereof. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.

Indicia Latin word meaning "Signs, Marks, Indication". It is an indication or signs which show that the fact by circumstances is probable and is existing. As in "Indicia of Partnership" there are facts that possibly show the sign that the person was a partner.

Signs; indications. Circumstances that point to the existence of a given fact as probable, but not certain. For example, indicia of partnership are any circumstances which would induce the belief that a given person was in reality, though not technically, a member of a given firm. The term is much used in Civil Law in a sense nearly or entirely synonymous with Circumstantial Evidence. It denotes facts that give rise to inferences, rather than the inferences themselves.

INDICIA, civil law. Signs, marks. Example: in replevin, the chattel must possess indicia, or earmarks, by which it can be distinguished from all others of the same description. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3556. This term is very nearly synonymous with the common law phrase, "circumstantial evidence." It was used to designate the facts giving rise to the indirect inference, rather than the inference itself; as, for example, the possession of goods recently stolen, vicinity to the scene of the crime, sudden change in circumstances or conduct, &c. Mascardus, de Prob. lib. 1, quaest. 15; Dall. Dict. Competence Criminelle, 92, 415; Morin, Dict. du Droit Criminal, mots Accusation, Chambre du Conseil. 2. Indicia may be defined to be conjectures, which result from circumstances not absolutely necessary and certain, but merely probable, and which may turn out not to be true, though they have the appearance of truth. Denisart, mot Indices. See Best on Pres. 13, note f. 3. However numerous indicia may be, they only show that a thing may be, not that it has been. An indicium, can have effect only when a connexion is essentially necessary with the principal. Effects are known by their causes, but only when the effects can arise only from the causes to which they. are attributed. When several causes may have produced one and the same effect, it is, therefore, unreasonable to attribute it to any one of such causes. A combination of circumstances sometimes conspire against an innocent person, and, like mute witnesses, depose against him. There is danger in such cases, that a jury may be misled; their minds prejudiced, their indignation unduly excited, or their zeal seduced. Under impressions thus produced, they may forget their true relation to the accused, and condemn a man whom they would have acquitted had they required that proof and certainty which the law demands. See D'Aguesseau, Oeuvres, vol. xiii.

1. CAPITALIST - one who contributes money or property to the common fund 2. INDUSTRIAL - one who contributes only his industry or personal service 3. GENERAL - one whose liability to 3rd persons extends to his separate property 4. LIMITED - one whose liability to 3rd persons is limited to his capital contribution 5. MANAGING - one who manages the affairs or business of the partnership 6. LIQUIDATING - one who takes charge of the winding up of partnership affairs upon dissolution 7. PARTNERS BY ESTOPPEL - one who is not really a partner but is liable as a partner for the protection of innocent 3rd persons 8. CONTINUING PARTNER - one who continues the business of a partnership after it has been dissolved by reason of the admission of a new partner, retirement, death or expulsion of one of the partners 9. SURVIVING PARTNER - one who remains after a partnership has been dissolved by death of any partner 10. SUBPARTNER - one who is not a member of the partnership who contracts with a partner with reference to the latter's share in the partnership 11. OSTENSIBLE - one who takes active part and known to the public as partner in the business 12. SECRET - one who takes active part in the business but is not known to be a partner by outside parties 13. SILENT - one who does not take any active part in the business although he may be known to be a partner

14. DORMANT - one who does not take active part in the business and is not known or held out as a partner

Limited Partnership A limited partnership (LP) offers the same tax benefits as a standard partnership with one exception. One or more of the partners are silent partners; this means that they will assist by giving the partnership seed money and collect profits, but will not run the business in any way. By remaining silent, these partners are shielded from liability. Limited Liability Partnership A limited liability partnership (LLP) still offers the partnership tax benefits, but also offers liability protection for its partners. Specifically, a limited liability partnership can only be sued for the total amount of assets in the business. For example, if a customer slipped on a pickle in your grocery store and is suing for their injuries, they cannot receive more than the total value of your grocery store. This partnership is a popular choice for law firms and medical practices to ensure that customers cannot sue for assets such as the practitioners home. General Partnerships A general partnership involves two or more owners carrying out a business purpose. General partners share equal rights and responsibilities in connection with management of the business, and any individual partner can bind the entire group to a legal obligation. Each individual partner assumes full responsibility for all of the business's debts and obligations. Although such personal liability is daunting, it comes with a tax advantage: partnership profits are not taxed to the business, but pass through to the partners, who include the gains on their individual tax returns at a lower rate.

* Partnership means a formal agreement between two or more parties that have agreed to work together in the pursuit of common goals. *A type of business organization in which two or more individuals pool money, skills, and other resources, and share profit and loss in accordance with terms of the partnership agreement. In absence of such agreement, a partnership is assumed to exit where the participants in an enterprise agree to share the associated risks and rewards proportionately .

*A legal form of business operation between two or more individuals who share management and profits. The federal government recognizes several types of partnerships. The two most common are general and limited partnerships.

KINDS OF PARTNERS ACTIVE PARTNER-Actively participates in the conduct of the business. SLEEPING PARTNER- Doesn't take active part. NOMINAL PARTNER-A partner who lends his name to thefirm without having any real interest in it. SUB PARTNER-When a partner agrees to share hisprofits derived from the firm with a third person, a sub partnership may arise. The third person is called as subpartner. Definition and Characteristics of Partnership

Section 4 of the Partnership Act defines a partnership as follows: "Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried by all or any of them acting for all." A partnership, as defined in the Act, must have three essential elements: *There must be an agreement entered into by two or more persons. *The agreement must be to share the profits of a business. *The business must be carried on by all or any of them acting for all.

Essential Elements of A Partnership

1. Voluntary Agreement The first element shows the voluntary contractual nature of partnership. A partnership can only arise as a result of an agreement, express or implied, between two or more persons. Where there is no agreement there is no partnership. But a partnership cannot be formed with more than ten persons in banking and twenty persons in other types of business. A partnership with persons exceeding the above limits must be registered under a Companies Act. Partnership is not created by status: Section 5 states that, "The relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status." In particular the members of a Hindu undivided family carrying on a family business, as such, are not partners in such business. Example: The sole proprietor of a business dies leaving a number of heirs. The heirs inherit the stock in trade of the business including the goodwill of the business but do not become partners until there in an agreement, express or implied, to carry on the business as partners.

2 Sharing of Profits of a Business The second element states the motive underlying the information of a partnership. It also lays down that the existence of a business is essential to a partnership. Business includes any trade, occupation or profession. If two or more persons join together to form a music club it is not a partnership because there is not business in this case. But if two or more persons join together to give musical performances to the public with a view to earning profit, there is a business and a partnership is formed. 3. Mutual Agency The third element is most important features of partnership. It states that persons carrying on business in partnership are agents as well as principals. The business of a firm is carried on by all or by any one or more of them on behalf of all. Every partner has the authority to act on behalf of all and can, by his actions, bind all the partner of the firm, each partner is the agent of the others in all matters connected with the business of the partnership. The law of partnership has therefore been called a branch of the law of agency. START DEFINITION In 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 profit among themselves. Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession An association of two or more persons to carry on, as co-owners, a business for profit (Uniform Partnership Act, Section 6). Partnerships resemble sole proprietorships, except that there are two or more owners of the business. Each owner is called a partner. Partnerships are often formed to bring together various talents and knowledge or to bring needed capital into a business. Partnerships are generally associated with the practice of law, public accounting, medicine and other professions. Partnerships of this nature are called general professional partnerships. On the other hand, service industries, retail trade, wholesale and manufacturing enterprises may also be organized as partnerships. CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTNERSHIPS The characteristics of partnerships are different from the sole proprietorships already studied in basic accounting. Some of the more important characteristics are as follows: Mutual Contribution. There cannot be a partnership without contribution of money, property or industry (i.e. work or services which may either be personal manual efforts or intellectual) to a common fund.

Division of Profits or Losses. The essence of partnership is that each partner must share in the profits or losses of the venture. Co-Ownership of Contributed Assets. All assets contributed into the partnership are owned by the partnership by virtue of its separate and distinct juridical personality. If one partner contributes an asset to the business, all partners jointly own it in a special sense. Mutual Agency. Any partner can bind the other partners to a contract if he is acting within his express or implied authority. Limited Life. A partnership has a limited life. It may be dissolved by the admission, death, insolvency, incapacity, withdrawal of a partner or expiration of the term specified in the partnership agreement. Unlimited Liability. All partners (except limited partners), including industrial partners, are personally liable for all debts incurred by the partnership. If the partnership can not settle its obligations, creditors' claims will be satisfied from the personal assets of the partners without prejudice to the rights of the separate creditors of the partners. Income Taxes. Partnerships, except general professional partnerships, are subject to tax at the rate of 34% (in 1998), 33% (in 1999) and 32% (in 2000 and thereafter) of taxable income. Partners' Equity Accounts. Accounting for partnerships are much like accounting for sole proprietorships. The difference lies in the number of partners' equity accounts. Each partner has a capital account and a withdrawal account that serves similar functions as the related accounts for sole proprietorships. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A PARTNERSHIP A partnership offers certain advantages over a sole proprietorship and a corporation. It also has a number of disadvantages. They are as follows: Advantages versus Proprietorships 1. Brings greater financial capability to the business. 2. Combines special skills, expertise and experience of the partners. 3. Offers relative freedom and flexibility of action in decision-making. Advantages versus Corporations 1. Easier and less expensive to organize. 2. More personal and informal. Disadvantages 1. Easily dissolved and thus unstable compared to a corporation. 2. Mutual agency and unlimited liability may create personal obligations to partners. 3. Less effective than a corporation in raising large amounts of capital.

PARTNERSHIP DISTINGUISHED FROM CORPORATION Manner of Creation. A partnership is created by mere agreement of the partners while a corporation is created by operation of law. Number of Persons. Two or more persons may form a partnership; in a corporation, at least five (5) persons, not exceeding fifteen (15). Commencement of Juridical Personality. In a partnership, juridical personality commences from the execution of the articles of partnership; in a corporation, from the issuance of certificate of incorporation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Management. In a partnership, every partner is an agent of the partnership if the partners did not appoint a managing partner; in a corporation, management is vested on the Board of Directors. Extent of Liability. In a partnership, each of the partners except a limited partner is liable to the extent of his personal assets; in a corporation, stockholders are liable only to the extent of their interest or investment in the corporation. Right of Succession. In a partnership, there is no right of succession; in a corporation, there is right of succession. A corporation has the capacity of continued existence regardless of the death, withdrawal, insolvency or incapacity of its directors or stockholders. Terms of Existence. In a partnership, for any period of time stipulated by the partners; in a corporation, not to exceed fifty (50) years but subject to extension.

1. According to object: A. Universal partnership of all present property. All contributions become part of the partnership fund. B. Universal partnership of profits. All that the partners may acquire by their industry or work during the existence of the partnership and the use of whatever the partners contributed at the time of the institution of the contract belong to the partnership. C. Particular partnership. The object of the partnership is determinateits use or fruit, specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation. 2. According to liability: A. General. All partners are liable to the extent of their separate properties. B. Limited. The limited partners are liable only to the extent of their personal contributions. In a limited partnership, the law states that there shall be at least one general partner. 3. According to duration: A. Partnership with a fixed term or for a particular undertaking. B. Partnership at will. One in which no term is specified and is not formed for any particular undertaking. 4. According to purpose: A. Commercial or trading partnership. One formed for the transaction of business. B. Professional or non-trading partnership. One formed for the exercise of profession.

5. According to legality of existence: A. De jure partnership. One which has complied with all the legal requirements for its establishment. B. De facto partnership. One which has failed to comply with all the legal requirements for its establishment.

1. General partner. One who is liable to the extent of his separate property after all the assets of the partnership are exhausted. 2. Limited partner. One who is liable only to the extent of his capital contribution. 3. Capitalist partner. One who contributes money or property to the common fund of the partnership. 4. Industrial partner. One who contributes his knowledge or personal service to the partnership. 5. Managing partner. One whom the partners has appointed as manager of the partnership. 6. Liquidating partner. One who is designated to wind up or settle the affairs of the partnership after dissolution. 7. Dormant partner. One who does not take active part in the business of the partnership and is not known as a partner. 8. Silent partner. One who does not take active part in the business of the partnership though may be known as a partner. 9. Secret partner. One who takes active part in the business but is not known to be a partner by outside parties. 10. Nominal partner or partner by estoppel. One who is actually not a partner but who represents himself as one.