The defendant company, a general partnership duly registered under the laws of the Philippines, purchased from the plaintiff a motor vehicle on the installment basis and for this purpose executed a promissory note for P9,440.00, payable in twelve equal monthly installments of P786.63, the first installment payable on or before May 22, 1961 and the subsequent installments on the 22nd day of every month thereafter, until fully paid, with the condition that failure to pay any of said installments as they fall due would render the whole unpaid balance immediately due and demandable.
Having failed to receive the installment due on July 22, 1961, the plaintiff sued the defendant company for the unpaid balance amounting to P7,119.07. Benjamin C. Daco, Daniel A. Guizona, Noel C. Sim, Romulo B. Lumauig, and Augusto Palisoc were included as co-defendants in their capacity as general partners of the defendant company.
Daniel A. Guizona failed to file an answer and was consequently declared in default.
Subsequently, on motion of the plaintiff, the complaint was dismissed insofar as the defendant Romulo B. Lumauig is concerned.
When the case was called for hearing, the defendants and their counsels failed to appear. Consequently, the trial court authorized the plaintiff to present its evidence ex-parte.
The defendants Benjamin C. Daco and Noel C. Sim moved to reconsider the decision claiming that since there are five general partners, the joint and subsidiary liability of each partner should not exceed one-fifth ( 1/ 5 ) of the obligations of the defendant company.
The trial court denied the said motion notwithstanding the conformity of the plaintiff to limit the liability of the defendants Daco and Sim to only one-fifth ( 1/ 5 ) of the obligations of the defendant company.
Is the dismissal of the complaint to favor one of the general partners of a partnership increases the joint and subsidiary liability of each of the remaining partners for the obligations of the partnership.
Condonation by creditor or share in partnership debt of one partner does not increase pro-rata liability of other partner.
In the instant case, there were five general partners when the promissory note in question was executed for and in behalf of the partnership. Since the liability of the partners is pro rata, the liability of the appellant Benjamin C. Daco shall be limited to only one-fifth ( 1/ 5 ) of the obligations of the defendant company. The fact that the complaint against the defendant Romulo B. Lumauig was dismissed, upon motion of the plaintiff, does not unmake the said Lumauig as a general partner in the defendant company. In so moving to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiff merely condoned Lumauig’s individual liability to the plaintiff.
The appealed decision as thus clarified was AFFIRMED.