Idos v. CA

Idos v. CA G.R. NO. 110782, September 25, 1998, Quisumbing, J.

 

 

Facts:

 

In 1985, Eddie Alarilla and Irma Idos formed a partnership which they decided to terminate after a year. To pay Alarilla’s share of the asset, Idos issued 4 post dated checks. Alarilla was able to encash the first, second and fourth checks but the third was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. He demanded payment but Idos failed to pay. She claimed that the checks were issued as assurance of Alarilla’s share in the assets of the partnership and that it was supposed to be deposited until the stocks were sold. He filed an information for violation of BP blg. 22 against Idos in which she was found guilty by the trial court.

 

Issue: Did the court confused and merged into one the legal concepts of dissolution, liquidation and termination of a partnership?

 

Ruling: The partners agreement to terminate the partnership did not automatically dissolved the partnership. They were in the process of winding-up when the check in question was issued. The best evidenceof the existence of the partnership, which was not yet terminated were the unsold goods and uncollected receivables which were presented to the trial court. Article 1829 of the Civil Code provides that “on dissolution the partnership is not terminated but continues until the winding-up of partnership affairs is completed. Since the partnership has not been terminated, Idos and Alarilla remained co-partners. The check was issued by petitioner to respondent as would a partner to another and not as a payment by debtor to creditor. Thus, absent the first element of the complained offense, the act is not punishable by the statute.