134 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
AGUSTIN ET AL. vs. INOCENCIO.
[No. 3745. October 26, 1907.]
Juan Agustin et al., plaintiffs; Victor del Rosario, ap-
pellant, vs. Bartolome Inocencio, defendant and appellee.
Partnership; Advances Allowed Managing Partner.—On the adjustment
of the accounts of a partnership, the managing partner may be
allowed funds borrowed or advanced and necessary to the completion
of the work, within the scope of the business and expressly provided
for by agreement among the partners.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Salas & Soncuya, for appellant.
Southworth & Ingersoll, for appellee.
Tracey, J.:
The parties to this controversy, who had been
conducting a partnership as industrial partners without
capital, contributed from its profits the sum of P807.28 as a
fund toward the construction of a casco for use in their
business, to which they added P3,500, borrowed from
Maria del Rosario, the wife of the defendant, Bartolome
Inocencio, he being the managing partner. It is admitted
that this total, a little over P4,300, was the estimated cost
of the casco, but in the progress of the work the defendant
found that it called for additional funds, which h£ advanced
to the amount of P2,024.49. It satisfactorily appears from
the evidence that this, amount was necessary in order to
complete the work undertaken. Although it would seem1
that he failed to notify his partners of the various items
from time to time going to make up this sum, it is shown
that the books were at all times open to their inspection,
and that, being asked to examine them, they omitted to do
so, and that the plaintiff Juan Agustin, representing all the
partners, was also present at the construction of the
135
VOL. 9, OCTOBER 26, 1907 135
AGUSTIN ET AL. vs. INOCENCIO.
casco, in charge of the practical work and cognizant of its
needs and its progress.
The work done on the casco having been within the
scope of the association and necessary to carry out its
express object, the borrowing of the money required to
carry it on, with the acquiescence if not with the
affirmative consent of his associates, was not outside the
powers of the managing partner and constitutes a debt for
which all the associates are liable.
The note passed into the hands of the defendant by
reason of the successive deaths of his wife and of their only
child, each without debts, and for the amount thereof he
became a. creditor, subject, however, to the deduction
therefrom of his proportionate part of the indebtedness.
The trial court treated his claim on this note, as well as
the sum of P2,024.49 furnished by him, as an addition to
his capital in the firm, rather than as a loan, and this
constitutes one of the grounds of error stated by the ap-
pellant. We do not deem it necessary to pass upon this
objection, for the reason that, considered as a loan, this
sum would place the defendant as a creditor in a stronger
position as against his associates than if regarded as a
mere contribution to capital. The error, if it be an error, is
not, therefore, prejudicial to the plaintiff, but is rather
beneficial to him. The respondent did not except to it.
Various small sums have been paid out of the profits to
some of the partners and these were properly allowed in
the judgment.
On the theory on which the action was disposed of, the
trial court committed no error in the computation of the
various shares.
Of the four parties plaintiff, but one, Victor del Rosario,
is interested in this appeal, which has been dismissed as to
the others, and as to him the judgment of the trial court
must be affirmed, with costs of this instance. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Willard, JJ.,
concur.
Judgment affirmed.
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
