Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Duterte v Rallos (2 P 509)

Facts: Duterte (plaintiff-appellant) claimed that Rallos (defendant), and one Castro were
partners in the management of a cockpit. However, Rallos denied said claim. The court
found that no such partnership existed and ordered judgment in favor with Rallos.
It is undisputed that the plaintiff rendered services in the management of the cockpit,
and that the defendant paid him money on account of the cockpit.
Rallos, after denying that the plaintiff was his partner, testified that the profits were
divided. A portion of which was given to two friends, Duterte and Castro, but not as
partners. A portion was given to Duterte solely because he was a friend who aided and
encouraged the cockpit and had no duty to perform, except when he had to preside at the
cockpit. He added that he only paid them for his pleasure, as friends, Duterte had no legal
interest.
Duterte testified that he made a verbal contract of partnership with the Rallos for this
business, uncontradicted evidence that he performed services in connection with it; that
Rallos paid him the money on account thereof and sent him accounts for three months
showing his interest to be one-third of the profits in addition to the $5 each day, and
wrote him a letter in which he said that he admitted the Duterte into the partnership in
order to collect what Duterte owed him on another transaction. The lower court found
that no such partnership existed and ordered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff
moved for a new trial, which was denied.
Issue: Whether or not Duterte and Rallos entered into a contract of partnership.
Held: Yes, Duterte and Rallos entered into a contract of partnership.
The SC have examined the evidence and are of the opinion that the finding of the
lower court as to the existence of the copartnership is manifestly against the evidence.
The Court see no other way of explaining the accounts submitted by the defendant to the
plaintiff. The evidence (letters and testimonies) presented clearly showed than that there
was a partnership between them up. That there was an agreement to share the profits is
clearly proved by the accounts submitted. The plaintiff testified that the profits and losses
were to be shared equally. But even omitting this testimony, the case is covered by article
1689 of the Civil Code, which provides that, in the absence of agreement as to the losses,
they shall be shared as the gains are. Article 1668 of the Civil Code is not applicable to
the case. No real estate was contributed by any member. The partnership did not become
the owner of the cockpit. It is undisputed that this was owned by the defendant and that
the partnership paid him ten dollars a day for the use of it. The finding of fact by the court
below, that there was no partnership, at least to September 1, 1901, was plainly and
manifestly against the evidence, and for that reason a new trial of this case must be had.