Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 436 views

    Digest Ortega Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Owen Buenaventura
    Ortega, del Castillo, Jr., and Bacorro were junior partners in a law firm partnership with Misa as the senior partner since 1980. In 1988, Misa wrote a letter withdrawing and retiring from the firm. Ortega then filed a petition for dissolution of the partnership. The SEC ruled that Misa's withdrawal dissolved the partnership as it was a partnership at will that could be dissolved by any partner withdrawing at any time. The Court of Appeals affirmed this. The Supreme Court also upheld the ruling, finding that the partnership agreement did not fix a term, making it a partnership at will that could be dissolved by any partner withdrawing in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest Ortega Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Owen Buenaventura
    436 views2 pages
    Ortega, del Castillo, Jr., and Bacorro were junior partners in a law firm partnership with Misa as the senior partner since 1980. In 1988, Misa wrote a letter withdrawing and retiring from the firm. Ortega then filed a petition for dissolution of the partnership. The SEC ruled that Misa's withdrawal dissolved the partnership as it was a partnership at will that could be dissolved by any partner withdrawing at any time. The Court of Appeals affirmed this. The Supreme Court also upheld the ruling, finding that the partnership agreement did not fix a term, making it a partnership at will that could be dissolved by any partner withdrawing in good faith.

    Original Description:

    partnership case

    Original Title

    Digest Ortega vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ortega, del Castillo, Jr., and Bacorro were junior partners in a law firm partnership with Misa as the senior partner since 1980. In 1988, Misa wrote a letter withdrawing and retiring from the firm. Ortega then filed a petition for dissolution of the partnership. The SEC ruled that Misa's withdrawal dissolved the partnership as it was a partnership at will that could be dissolved by any partner withdrawing at any time. The Court of Appeals affirmed this. The Supreme Court also upheld the ruling, finding that the partnership agreement did not fix a term, making it a partnership at will that could be dissolved by any partner withdrawing in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    436 views2 pages

    Digest Ortega Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Owen Buenaventura
    Ortega, del Castillo, Jr., and Bacorro were junior partners in a law firm partnership with Misa as the senior partner since 1980. In 1988, Misa wrote a letter withdrawing and retiring from the firm. Ortega then filed a petition for dissolution of the partnership. The SEC ruled that Misa's withdrawal dissolved the partnership as it was a partnership at will that could be dissolved by any partner withdrawing at any time. The Court of Appeals affirmed this. The Supreme Court also upheld the ruling, finding that the partnership agreement did not fix a term, making it a partnership at will that could be dissolved by any partner withdrawing in good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    .R. No. 109248 July 3, 1995 GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, TOMAS O. DEL CASTILLO, JR.

    ,
    and BENJAMIN T. BACORRO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and JOAQUIN L. MISA, respondents.
    FACTS: Ortega, then a senior partner in the law firm Bito, Misa, and Lozada
    withdrew from the said firm. He filed with SEC a petition for dissolution and
    liquidation of the partnership. The SEC en banc ruled that withdrawal of Misa
    from the firm had dissolved the partnership. Since it is partnership at will, the law
    firm could be dissolved by any partner at anytime, such as by withdrawal
    therefrom, regardless of good faith or bad faith, since no partner can be forced to
    continue in the partnership against his will. ISSUE: 1. WON the partnership of
    Bito, Misa & Lozada (now Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo)is a partnership at will
    2. WON the withdrawal of Misa dissolved the partnership regardlessof his good or
    bad faith HELD: 1. Yes. The partnership agreement of the firm provides that
    [t]he partnership shall continue so long as mutually satisfactory and upon the
    death or legal incapacity of one of the partners, shall be continued by the
    surviving partners. 2. Yes. Any one of the partners may, at his sole pleasure,
    dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will (e.g. by way of withdrawal of a
    partner). He must, however, act in good faith, not that the attendance of bad
    faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership but that it can result in a
    liability for damages

    Ortega vs. CA
    FACTS:
    On December 19, 1980, respondent Misa associated himself together, as senior partner with
    petitioners Ortega, del Castillo, Jr., and Bacorro, as junior partners. On Feb. 17, 1988,
    respondent Misa wrote a letter stating that he is withdrawing and retiring from the firm and
    asking for a meeting with the petitioners to discuss the mechanics of the liquidation. On June
    30, 1988, petitioner filed a petition to the Commision's Securities Investigation and Clearing
    Department for the formal dissolution and liquidation of the partnership. On March 31, 1989,
    the hearing officer rendered a decision ruling that the withdrawal of the petitioner has not
    dissolved the partnership. On appeal, the SEC en banc reversed the decision and was affirmed
    by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that the partnership is a partnership
    at will and whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that the withdrawal of
    private respondent dissolved the partnership regardless of his good or bad faith
    HELD:
    No. The SC upheld the ruling of the CA regarding the nature of the partnership. The SC
    further stated that a partnership that does not fix its term is a partnership at will. The birth and
    life of a partnership at will is predicated on the mutual desire and consent of the partners. The
    right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and
    essence of that partnership. Its continued existence is, in turn, dependent on the constancy of

    that mutual resolve, along with each partner's capability to give it, and the absence of a cause
    for dissolution provided by the law itself. Verily, any one of the partners may, at his sole
    pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will. He must, however, act in good faith,
    not that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership but that it
    can result in a liability for damages

    You might also like