FACTS:
On
November 8, 1972, petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance
of Rizal against the partnership La Mallorca and its general partners, which
included private respondents, for collection of a sum of money arising from
gasoline purchased on credit but not paid, for damages and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in declaring null and void its earlier decision of July 25,
1974.
Yes, respondents acted with grave abuse of
discretion. The judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendants ordering the defendant La Mallorca Partnership to pay the plaintiff. From a joint venture/partnership theory
which he adopted and consistently pursued in his complaint. Respondents shall
be excluded and that only nominal attorney's fees shall be awarded. Petitioner
embraced the innominate contract theory. The defense agreed to submit the case
for decision solely on the basis of evidence adduced by plaintiff Mobil Oil but
past interest in the amount of P150. An inventory of the contributed property
duly signed by the parties should be attached to the public instrument. Being
unsigned and referring to a partnership involving more than P3. MOBIL OIL
PHILIPPINES. the counsel of the defendant successfully bargained for a
compromise agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment