GR 10695; (December, 1916) (Digest)
Case Digest: De los Reyes v. Lukban and Borja, G.R. No. 10695, December 15, 1916
Parties:
Plaintiff-Appellee: Teodoro de los Reyes
Defendants: Vicente Lukban and Esperidion Borja (Partners of the dissolved firm “Lukban & Borja”)
Appellant: Vicente Lukban (Co-defendant Borja did not appeal)
Facts:
1. In 1905, plaintiff Teodoro de los Reyes obtained a final judgment (in Case No. 3759) against the commercial partnership “Lukban & Borja” for a debt of P1,086.65 plus interest and costs.
2. The partnership was dissolved in April 1909.
3. In 1913, de los Reyes filed a new case (No. 10908) against the partnership itself to recover the unpaid balance of the 1905 judgment. This case was dismissed, and the dismissal became final.
4. Subsequently, on December 5, 1913, de los Reyes filed the present action against the individual partners, Vicente Lukban and Esperidion Borja, to recover the same unpaid balance.
Procedural Posture:
The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering both defendants to pay the debt jointly and severally. Defendant Vicente Lukban appealed this decision.
Issues:
1. Whether an action for a new money judgment can be maintained against the individual partners based on a prior final judgment rendered solely against the dissolved partnership.
2. Whether the plaintiff must first exhaust the partnership’s assets before proceeding against the individual partners.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the lower court and DISMISSED the complaint.
Ratio:
1. No Cause of Action for a “Judgment on a Judgment”: The Court held that Philippine law and procedure do not authorize an action whose sole purpose is to obtain a new money judgment based on a prior final judgment. A judgment is not a debt that gives rise to a new cause of action for an identical sum.
The correct procedure for a judgment creditor, after the lapse of the period for issuing an ordinary writ of execution (then 5 years), is to file an action not for a new judgment, but to revive or enforce the old judgment under what is now Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (then Section 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The result of such an action is an order for the issuance of a new writ of execution, not a new monetary judgment.
2. Procedure Against Partners of a Judgment-Debtor Partnership: The Court clarified the proper remedy against partners when the judgment debtor is a partnership.
The plaintiff must first seek execution of the judgment against the partnership’s property.
Only after the partnership assets are exhausted may the creditor proceed, under the same original judgment, to execute against the separate property of the individual partners. There is no legal basis for filing a separate, new lawsuit against the partners to obtain a fresh personal judgment against them for the partnership debt.
Disposition:
The appealed judgment was reversed. The complaint against the individual partners was dismissed on the merits. No costs were awarded.
Key Doctrine Established:
A final judgment against a commercial partnership does not, by itself, provide a cause of action for a new and separate money judgment against its individual partners.
The remedy of a judgment creditor against the partners is through execution proceedings under the original judgment, following the sequence of first exhausting partnership assets before proceeding against individual assets. A separate civil action against the partners for the same judgment debt is improper.
This is AI Generated. Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.