Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Rojas v. Maglana

    Uploaded by

    Anakata
    The case involved a partnership between Maglana and Rojas called Eastcoast Development Enterprises (EDE) with an indefinite term. They later brought in Pahamatong as an industrial partner under a new 30-year partnership agreement. After Pahamatong withdrew, Maglana claimed the partnership with Rojas was dissolved as Rojas left to work for another company, took equipment, and withdrew more funds than his contributions. The court ruled the original partnership continued even after the addition of Pahamatong, as the second agreement was only meant to include him and his withdrawal did not dissolve the first partnership between Maglana and Rojas.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rojas v. Maglana

    Uploaded by

    Anakata
    9 views1 page
    The case involved a partnership between Maglana and Rojas called Eastcoast Development Enterprises (EDE) with an indefinite term. They later brought in Pahamatong as an industrial partner under a new 30-year partnership agreement. After Pahamatong withdrew, Maglana claimed the partnership with Rojas was dissolved as Rojas left to work for another company, took equipment, and withdrew more funds than his contributions. The court ruled the original partnership continued even after the addition of Pahamatong, as the second agreement was only meant to include him and his withdrawal did not dissolve the first partnership between Maglana and Rojas.

    Original Description:

    Rojas v. Maglana

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a partnership between Maglana and Rojas called Eastcoast Development Enterprises (EDE) with an indefinite term. They later brought in Pahamatong as an industrial partner under a new 30-year partnership agreement. After Pahamatong withdrew, Maglana claimed the partnership with Rojas was dissolved as Rojas left to work for another company, took equipment, and withdrew more funds than his contributions. The court ruled the original partnership continued even after the addition of Pahamatong, as the second agreement was only meant to include him and his withdrawal did not dissolve the first partnership between Maglana and Rojas.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views1 page

    Rojas v. Maglana

    Uploaded by

    Anakata
    The case involved a partnership between Maglana and Rojas called Eastcoast Development Enterprises (EDE) with an indefinite term. They later brought in Pahamatong as an industrial partner under a new 30-year partnership agreement. After Pahamatong withdrew, Maglana claimed the partnership with Rojas was dissolved as Rojas left to work for another company, took equipment, and withdrew more funds than his contributions. The court ruled the original partnership continued even after the addition of Pahamatong, as the second agreement was only meant to include him and his withdrawal did not dissolve the first partnership between Maglana and Rojas.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Rojas v.

    Maglana

    Facts:

    Maglana and Rojas executed their Articles of Co-Partnership called Eastcoast Development Enterprises
    (EDE). It was a partnership with an indefinite term of existence. Maglana shall manage the business affairs
    while Rojas shall be the logging superintendant and shall manage the logging operation. They shall share
    in all profits and loss equally. Due to difficulties encountered they decided to avail of the sources of
    Pahamatong as industrial partners. They again executed their Articles of Co-Partnership under EDE. The
    term is 30 years. After sometime Pamahatong sold his interest to Maglana and Rojas including equipment
    contributed. After withdrawal of Pamahatong, Maglana and Rojas continued the partnership. After 3
    months, Rojas entered into a management contract with another logging enterprise. He left and abandoned
    the partnership. He even withdrew his equipment from the partnership and was transferred to CMS. He
    never told Maglana that he will not be able to comply with the promised contributions and he will not work
    as logging superintendent. Maglana then told Rojas that the latter share will just be 20% of the net profits.
    Rojas took funds from the partnership more than his contribution. Thus, Maglana notified Rojas that he
    dissolved the partnership.

    Issue: What is the nature of the partnership and legal relationship of Maglana and Rojas after Pahamatong
    retired from the second partnership

    Ruling:

    It was not the intention of the partners to dissolve the first partnership, upon the constitution of the second
    one, which they unmistakably called additional agreement. Otherwise stated even during the existence of
    the second partnership, all business transactions were carried out under the duly registered articles. No
    rights and obligations accrued in the name of the second partnership except in favor of Pahamatong which
    was fully paid by the duly registered partnership.

    You might also like