This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-09-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Generally understood to mean an organization formed for some temporary purpose, a joint venture is likened to a particular partnership or one which "has for its object determinate things, their use or fruits, or a specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation."[27] The rule is settled that joint ventures are governed by the law on partnerships[28] which are, in turn, based on mutual agency or delectus personae.[29] Insofar as a partner's conveyance of the entirety of his interest in the partnership is concerned, Article 1813 of the Civil Code provides as follows: Art. 1813. A conveyance by a partner of his whole interest in the partnership does not itself dissolve the partnership, or, as against the other partners in the absence of agreement, entitle the assignee, during the continuance of the partnership, to interfere in the management or administration of the partnership business or affairs, or to require any information or account of partnership transactions, or to inspect the partnership books; but it merely entitles the assignee to receive in accordance with his contracts the profits to which the assigning partners would otherwise be entitled. However, in case of fraud in the management of the partnership, the assignee may avail himself of the usual remedies. | |||||
|
2005-08-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to PPA AO No. 03-2000, petitioner set the deadline for the submission of the technical and financial bids for the port of Dumaguete City at 12:00 noon of 05 July 2000; the opening of the technical bids on 05 July 2000 at 1:00 p.m.; and the dropping of the financial bids on 28 July 2000 at 1:00 p.m. Contending that this action on the part of petitioner was in derogation of its vested right over the operation of cargo handling enterprise in Dumaguete City, respondent initiated an action for specific performance, injunction with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order before the RTC of Dumaguete City.[18] This civil action was filed on 31 March 2000 and was raffled off to Branch 44 of said court wherein it was docketed as Civil Case No. 12688. | |||||
|
2005-07-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to PPA AO No. 03-2000, petitioner set the deadline for the submission of the technical and financial bids for the port of Dumaguete City at 12:00 noon of 05 July 2000; the opening of the technical bids on 05 July 2000 at 1:00 p.m.; and the dropping of the financial bids on 28 July 2000 at 1:00 p.m. Contending that this action on the part of petitioner was in derogation of its vested right over the operation of cargo handling enterprise in Dumaguete City, respondent initiated an action for specific performance, injunction with application for preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order before the RTC of Dumaguete City.[18] This civil action was filed on 31 March 2000 and was raffled off to Branch 44 of said court wherein it was docketed as Civil Case No. 12688. | |||||
|
2001-09-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, no evidence was presented to show that petitioner Belo participated in the profits of the business enterprise. Respondent herself professed lack of knowledge that petitioner Belo received any share in the net income of the partnership.[5] On the other hand, petitioner Tocao declared that petitioner Belo was not entitled to any share in the profits of Geminesse Enterprise.[6] With no participation in the profits, petitioner Belo cannot be deemed a partner since the essence of a partnership is that the partners share in the profits and losses.[7] | |||||