G.R. No. 38765; February 12, 1934
LUIS MA. ROBLES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, et al., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Luis Ma. Robles was a partner in the commercial firm Pardo y Robles Hermanos. The articles of copartnership provided that a withdrawing partner must give written notice, and the firm would have three years to pay his share. Robles gave notice of withdrawal on October 1, 1927. On January 28, 1930, his interest was liquidated at P80,000, and a method of payment was agreed upon (later modified). The partnership failed to make payments, prompting Robles to file suit. The defendants appealed the trial court’s decision in favor of Robles, arguing that the settlement was contingent on securing a loan, that Robles could not recover until all partnership debts were paid, and that the proceedings were invalid because one defendant, Manuel Pardo (since deceased), who was not admitted to practice law in the Philippines, represented other defendants in court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the liquidation of Robles’s share was a final settlement or contingent upon the partnership securing a loan.
2. Whether a withdrawing partner must wait for all partnership debts to be paid before recovering his share.
3. Whether the court proceedings were invalid due to representation by Manuel Pardo.

RULING

1. The settlement was final and not contingent. The liquidation of Robles’s share on January 28, 1930, fixed his rights as a creditor of the partnership. The authorization to seek a loan pertained only to the mode of payment and did not make the settlement conditional. Robles’s right to payment accrued as per the partnership agreement, and he was not required to wait beyond the stipulated three-year period.
2. A withdrawing partner is not liable for subsequent partnership debts. Upon withdrawal and liquidation, Robles ceased to be a partner and became a creditor. He is not required to await the payment of all partnership debts before recovering his share, absent any allegation of intent to defraud creditors.
3. The proceedings were valid. While Manuel Pardo was not admitted to practice in the Philippines, he could represent himself and the partnership as its managing director. The other defendants, who were related and shared identical interests, cannot now challenge his representation as they were duly served summons and effectively appeared through him. Their failure to object earlier constituted waiver or default.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.