SARDANE VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Petitioner Sardane is the owner of a Sardane Trucking Services. One day Sardane borrowed money from the other guy by making promises and issuing several promissory notes. On the due date the other guy wanted his money back but instead of paying Sardane apologized for his failure to pay on time, and he promised the other guy that he would pay him next time. After so many failed attempts to collect his money – the other guy got mad and finally decided to seek the intervention of the court. Now after so many failed attempts to collect the promised payment, the other guy, Mr.Acojedo (Private Respondent), with so much hate on his heart, finally filed a collection case against Sardane. Even during the scheduled date of the trial, Sardane, as usual he did not show up. On motion by the petitioner(herein private respondent), the Court issued an order declaring the Sardane in default and eventually after presentation of evidence ex parte, the court rendered judgment by default in favor of the petitioner. Sardane then appealed to the CFI, and he claimed that the promissory notes were his contribution to the partnership; and that there is no contract of loan; thus he is not indebted to the other guy. The CFI, believing the arguments of Sardane, ruled on his favor thereby reversing the decision of the lower court by dismissing the complaint and ordered the plaintiff-appellee Acojedo to pay said defendant-appellant P500.00 for moral damages 

ISSUE:

whether or not a partnership existed?

HELD: 

NONE .The fact that he had received 50% of the net profits does not conclusively establish that he was a partner of the private respondent herein. Article 1769(4) of the Civil Code is explicit that while the receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, no such inference shall be drawn if such profits were received in payment as wages of an employee. Furthermore, herein petitioner had no voice in the management of the affairs of the basnig. Under similar facts, this Court in the early case of Fortis vs. Gutierrez Hermanos, denied the claim of the plaintiff therein that he was a partner in the business of the defendant. The same rule was reiterated in Bastida vs. Menzi & Co., Inc., et al. which involved the same factual and legal milieu.