G.R. No. L-8853; March 22, 1915

FACTS:
This is the second appeal of the case. The plaintiff, Aldecoa & Co. (in liquidation), alleged that it entered into a joint-account partnership with the defendant, Warner, Barnes and Co. (Ltd.), for the purchase of hemp in Albay. The plaintiff claimed the partnership commenced on December 1, 1898, while the defendant asserted it began on June 30, 1899. The defendant acted as the managing partner (gestora). The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the defendant failed to render proper accounts supported by vouchers, committed various errors and omissions in its book entries, engaged in a fraudulent conspiracy with the plaintiff’s former managers, and improperly acquired real properties for itself that should belong to the partnership. The plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to render accounts, a revision of previously approved accounts (1900-1902) due to fraud, and damages. After a first appeal, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial with specific directives. Following the new trial, the lower court rendered a judgment which both parties appealed.

ISSUE:
The main issues revolve around: (1) the commencement date of the joint-account partnership; (2) the defendant’s obligation to render accounts for specific periods; (3) the validity and finality of the accounts for the years 1900-1902; (4) the existence of fraud, error, or omission in the defendant’s management; (5) the ownership of certain real properties acquired by the defendant; and (6) the prescription of the plaintiff’s action.

RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
1. The partnership began on July 1, 1899, not December 1, 1898. Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to render accounts for the prior seven months.
2. For the last semester of 1899, the profits were fixed by agreement at P160,000 (one-half already collected by plaintiff). The defendant had no obligation to render accounts for this period, and the plaintiff cannot claim further sums or losses.
3. The accounts for the years 1900 to 1902 are final and cannot be revised. The plaintiff failed to prove fraud, error, or omission in their approval, and did not specifically allege errors against the trial court’s order denying revision.
4. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant committed fraud or error in fixing hemp prices on various dates. Thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for the claimed sum of P28,064.86.
5. The defendant is not liable for the sum of P8,750 mentioned in the complaint.
6. The real properties acquired by the defendant were lawfully acquired for itself and do not belong to the joint-account partnership. A joint-account partnership is not a juridical entity, and no law prohibits the managing partner from acquiring real property for itself. The plaintiff has no share or interest in these properties.
7. The defendant is not obliged to pay one-half of the interest on the price of property referred to in an 1899 account entry.
8. The action had not prescribed, as the four-year period had not elapsed from January 1, 1904, to the filing of the complaint on September 26, 1907.
9. The writ of mandamus sought by the plaintiff is without ground.
10. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P478.79 with 6% annual interest from September 26, 1907, representing an amount found due to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed judgment, absolved the defendant from the complaint and other claims, and ordered the payment as specified. No costs were awarded.