GR 143340; (August, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143340, August 15, 2001
LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN and CECILIA SUNGA, petitioners, vs. LAMBERTO T. CHUA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lamberto T. Chua filed a complaint against petitioners Lilibeth Sunga Chan and Cecilia Sunga (daughter and wife, respectively, of the deceased Jacinto L. Sunga) for “Winding Up of Partnership Affairs, Accounting, Appraisal and Recovery of Shares and Damages.” Respondent alleged he verbally entered into a partnership with Jacinto in 1977 for the distribution of Shellane LPG, registered under Jacinto’s name as a sole proprietorship for convenience. Each contributed P100,000.00, with profits to be equally divided. Upon Jacinto’s death in 1989, petitioners took over the business without respondent’s consent and failed to comply with his demands for accounting and restitution, despite a partial payment of P200,000.00 made in March 1991. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case, arguing jurisdiction lay with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and that the claim should be prosecuted against Jacinto’s estate. The trial court denied the motions, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and ultimately by the Supreme Court in a prior petition. After petitioners waived their right to present evidence, the trial court ruled in favor of respondent, ordering accounting, restitution, payment of shares and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
1. Whether a partnership existed between respondent and the late Jacinto L. Sunga.
2. Whether laches or prescription had set in against respondent’s claim.
3. Whether there was competent and credible evidence to prove the partnership.
RULING
1. Yes, a partnership existed. The Supreme Court found that the elements of a partnership—mutual contribution to a common fund and a joint interest in the profits—were present based on respondent’s credible testimony and supporting documents. The agreement for equal capital contribution and profit-sharing, and the subsequent conduct of the parties, established a partnership, notwithstanding its registration as a sole proprietorship.
2. No, laches or prescription did not apply. The action, being based on an oral contract of partnership, prescribed in six years. The prescriptive period commenced from the date of dissolution, which occurred upon Jacinto’s death in 1989. Respondent’s filing of the complaint in 1992 was within the prescriptive period. Furthermore, the partial payment made in 1991 effectively interrupted the prescriptive period.
3. Yes, there was competent and credible evidence. Respondent’s testimony, corroborated by documentary evidence such as inventory lists and balance sheets provided by Jacinto during his lifetime, was found credible and sufficient to establish the partnership. The trial court’s assessment of credibility, especially as petitioners waived their right to present contrary evidence, is accorded great respect.