1° EXAM — PARTNERSHIPS, TRUSTS AND AGENCIES Atty. Raymund Christian S. Ong Abrantes, CPA ‘Ateneo de Davao University Third Year Manresa August 19, 2017 5:00 P.M. = 7:00 P.M, INSTRUCTIONS 1, This Questionnaire contains six (6) pages. Check the number of pages and make sure it has the correct number of pages and their proper numbers, All the items have to be answered (2) hours. Since there are twelve (12) questions, you have 10 minutes to answer each question. You may write on the Questionnaire for notes relating to the questions. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Examination Notebook jn the same order the questions are posed, Write your answers only on the frontof every sheet in your Notebook. If not sufficient then start with the back page of the first sheet and thereafter. Note well the allocated percentage points for each number, question, or sub-question. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire. 2. Answer the Essay questions /égibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each number on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed, ‘Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer with the pertinent laws, rules, jurisprudence, and the facts. ‘A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding explanation or discussion will not be given full credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your answers although the question does not expressly ask. for an explanation. You do not need to re-write or repeat the question in your Notebook. 3. Make sure you do not write any extraneous note/s or distinctive marking/s on your Notebook that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to the Examiner). Writing, leaving, or making any distinguishing or identifying mark in the exam Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you. CAN BRING Hi INAIRE.pooner co Sm tty oer On March 3, 1997; | 1urchased two (2) brand new transreceivers from Quan Systems cprton 9) through ts emplojee Medina (Medina), amounting to a total of P218,000.00. On May 10, 1997, due ‘major defects, G personally returned th transreceivers to QSC and requested that they be replaced. [Covina received the returned transreceivers and promised to send him the replacement units within two (2) weeks from May 10, 1997, ‘Time passed and G did not receive replacement units as promised. QSC informed him that there were ‘o-avallable units and that it could hod and written, ind the purchased price. Despite several demands, both oral G was never given a réptécement or a refund- the total amount of P40,936.44, re demands caused G to incur expenses in ‘Thus, G filed a complaint for damages, Summons was served upon QSC and Medina, after which they led their Answer, verified by Medina Himself and a certain EWvin Ong (Ong). QSC and Medina did not present, ‘any evidence during the tral Ina Decision, dated Mar ch 16, 2007, that QSC and the RTC found that the Medina failed to repiac ‘two (2) transreceivers were defective and ce the same or return G's money. Hence, the RTC ruled in favor of G, ‘The decision became final as QSC and Medina Execution dated Septem id not interpose an appeal. G then secured a Wit of iber 26, 2007. During the execution stage, G leamed that ership registered with the Securit ( J we QSC was not a corporation, '8S appointed as General Manag but was in fact a general les and Exchange Commission (SEC) In the articles of partnership, er of QSC. To execute the judgment, Branch Sheriff Ronnie went to ‘Transportation and Comm lunications, Land Transportat Medina,-QSC and_Guy hac the main office of the Department of id personal pr tion Office (DOTC-LTO), and verified whether properties registered therein, Spon learning that Guy had vehicles registered in his name, G instructed the serif to proceed with the. attachment of one of the motor vehicles of Guy, ‘On March 3, 2009, Sheriff Ronnie attached Guy's vehicle Personalty served upon the rec cord custodian of the by virtue of the Notice of attachment/Levy upon through his housemaid at his residence DOTC-LTO. & similar notice was served to Guy Teenent2t/Gu) led his Motion to Lit attachment Upon Personalty, arguing thal be was not a judgment é be attached. G fled an opposition to the moll 1 ‘ fot corperatoy the RTC sued an order denying Gus motion 1 explained that considering QSC was Be ned joey bua eatered partnership, Guy should be treated asa goneel porene go may bbe held jointly and severally lable with QSC and Medina, ot ecg fayenoved for reconsideration ofthe denial of Nis maton, He argued thatthe al court forthe paren epee Person that under the Gil Coe, the partners were ony een ee forthe donc labity under exceptional creunstances; and tat in orer fora pore we ‘or the debts ofthe partnership, Rust be shown that al partnership acct hal eres ee eae On February 19, 2010, the RT issued an order denying his mation. The denial prompted Guy to seek relief before the CA. On June 25, 2012, the CA re ndered the assailed decision dismissing Guy siven by the trial court. TRA shes a ay, ing ptr QS, as tad te morsel en Te ca | ur ast tenure Sars ete TU den ST | be made liable. He remained “solidarily llable whether he Participated or not, whether he ratified it or ‘not, | Soares ona ee | uy es at et aye hepatica te oy tty pres rh Ses han aa em ape ey aby fe Seba yf he rin cy ter noe ae ie Ber arsine Se/ f tn his Comment, G countered, among others, that because Guy was a general and managing partner of {QSC, he could not feign ignorance of the transactions undertaken by QSC. G insisted that notice to one partner must be considered as notice to the whole partnership, which included the pendency of the civil suit against it. In his Reply, Guy contended that jurisdiction over the person of the partnership was not acquired because the summons was never served upon itor through any gf its authorized officer. He also reiterated that a partners lability was joint and xgbsidixy, and fio} salidary. A. Is the trial court’s jurisdiction over QSC (the Partnership) extends to the person of Guy as general ‘manager thereof? Explain. (10%) B. Is Guy solidarly lable with QSC? Explain. (10%) De} bo Yap, Co Tan, FIG Lil Lo Ang entered into a contract of partnership on January 1, 2013.30 Sy ae oo oe deskgtated as Industral and Capitalist Partners while the others were merely Capitalist Partners. . Presented below is the Copy of the Notarized Articles of Partnership, signed by all parties and duly recorded in the Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 1, 2013: ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP oF Mabuhay Electronics Company KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: ‘That. we, the undersigned partners, all of legal age, residents and citizens of the Philippines, have on this day voluntarily associated ourselves together for the purpose of forming a ‘general partnership under the following terms and conditions and subject to existing and applicable laws of the Republic of the Philippines: AND WE HEREBY CERTIFY: ARTICLE I. Partnership Name: That the name of this partnership shall be Mabuhay Electronics Company and shall transact business under the said company name. sre; ARTICUE - Business Purse: That the purposes for which this partnership is formed fare: . as the business of imposting, buying, selling or otherwise trading Solar-Powered To do ‘acts and things, necessary, desirable or appropriate for the attainment of the foregoing purposes. ARTICLE IIT. Principal Place of Business: That the principal place of business of this partnership shall be located at : Door 9, Limpasan Building, CM Recto Street, Davao City ARTICLE IV. Term of Existence: That this partnership shall have a term of two (2) years from and after the original recording of fs Articles of Partnership by the Secures and Exchange mission.