G.R. No. L-4196

BENWIT ULLMANN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FELIX ULLMANN and CO., defendants-appellees.
March 20, 1908

FACTS:

Plaintiff Benwit Ullmann was employed by Felix Ullmann and Co. A written contract dated December 14, 1899, stipulated his service for three years at 600 francs per month, plus 10% of all business and net profits. After the three years, he continued rendering services until January 20, 1906.

On April 21, 1905, Felix Ullmann, the senior partner, wrote from Paris informing Benwit of a salary reduction to 400 francs per month, effective end of May 1905. However, this letter was not delivered to Benwit until September 14, 1905. Upon receiving it, Benwit cabled his non-acceptance and demanded an account settlement. Despite this, the company’s local representative, Emmanuel Ullmann, retained Benwit, promising the usual 600 francs per month plus 10% profits until January 31, 1906, and partial payments of P400 for November and December 1905, and January 1906. Benwit received the payments for Nov-Dec 1905.

On January 20, 1906, the company refused to continue the agreement and pay the P400 for January, leading Benwit to leave. Benwit sued for P17,492.23, disputing the company’s account statement on several grounds:
1. His profit share was credited at 5% instead of 10% on August 31, 1902.
2. His salary for seven and a half months while in Europe was credited at 300 francs instead of 600 francs per month.
3. He was charged with an unpaid debt of Vicente Hernaez (P3,264.91) incurred during 1896-1897.
4. He was debited P7,808.27, representing one-half of a sum embezzled by Edmund Ullmann, an industrial partner and manager in 1901.
5. He claimed unpaid salary and subsistence of P181 for January 1-20, 1906.
6. He also filed an amended petition for an accounting and payment of 10% of the net profits from March 31, 1905, until January 20, 1906.

The defendants did not submit a bill of exceptions to the lower court’s judgment.

ISSUE:

What is the correct settlement of Benwit Ullmann’s account with Felix Ullmann and Co., specifically regarding disputed salary, profit shares, and liabilities for debts/embezzlement, given that only the plaintiff-appellant filed a bill of exceptions?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that since the defendants failed to submit a bill of exceptions, their alleged errors or counter-arguments could not be considered. Only the plaintiff’s appeal points were subject to review.

The Court ruled as follows:
1. Entitlement to January 1906 Salary: Benwit Ullmann is entitled to collect P181 as salary earned during the first twenty days of January 1906.
2. Salary and Profit Share During Absence: Benwit Ullmann should only recover one-half of his salary and 10% of the profits for the seven and a half months he was in Europe in 1901. (This aligns with the lower court’s finding, which the Supreme Court effectively upheld, as the plaintiff’s appeal on this point was not fully granted).
3. Liability for Hernaez’s Debt: Benwit Ullmann is not liable for the debt contracted by Vicente Hernaez.
4. Responsibility for Misappropriated Jewels: Benwit Ullmann is not responsible for the value of the jewels misappropriated by Gertrudis Montinola and Guadalupe Torro.
5. Liability for Edmund Ullmann’s Embezzlement: Benwit Ullmann is not responsible for the sum of P7,808.27 (one-half of the amount misappropriated by the managing partner, Edmund Ullmann).
6. Accounting and Payment of Future Profits: The defendants must render an accounting of the profits obtained by the company from March 31, 1905, to January 20, 1906, and pay Benwit Ullmann such sums as may result therefrom, at the rate of 10%.

The judgment of the lower court was set aside without special ruling as to costs, to the extent that it did not align with these decisions, effectively modifying it to incorporate the additional relief granted to the plaintiff.