GR 127405; (September, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127405; September 20, 2001
Marjorie Tocao and William T. Belo, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Nenita A. Anay, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Marjorie Tocao and William T. Belo filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s Decision dated October 4, 2000. They argued that no partnership existed between petitioner Belo and respondent Nenita A. Anay, and that Anay was merely an employee of petitioner Tocao. The dispute originated from an informal business venture called Geminesse Enterprise, which was not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The petitioners contended that Belo’s involvement was limited to being a guarantor for the enterprise, a fact supported by the testimony of respondent’s own witness, Elizabeth Bantilan. Bantilan confirmed that Belo acted as a guarantor for stocks and loans, while another individual, Peter Lo, was the actual financier. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to show that Belo participated in the profits of the business.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether William T. Belo could be considered a partner in the informal partnership of Geminesse Enterprise, thereby making him jointly liable with Marjorie Tocao to respondent Nenita A. Anay.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the Motion for Reconsideration. It held that William T. Belo was not a partner in Geminesse Enterprise. The Court emphasized that the essence of a partnership under the law is the sharing of profits and losses. The testimony of respondent’s witness established that Belo acted merely as a guarantor, not a partner. His occasional participation in business affairs, as a friend and confidante of Tocao, did not constitute formal partnership involvement. Critically, no evidence demonstrated that Belo received any share in the enterprise’s profits. Consequently, having no participation in profits, Belo could not be deemed a partner. The complaint against him was ordered dismissed.
Regarding the award of damages, the Court addressed petitioners’ claim that respondent Anay acted in bad faith by withholding stocks worth P208,250.00. The Court found her retention of stocks justified as security for her claims following her sudden ouster. While this did not constitute bad faith barring her claim, the said amount was ordered deducted from any final sum adjudged in her favor after a proper accounting of the partnership affairs by the Regional Trial Court. The ruling against petitioner Tocao remained subject to this accounting and deduction.