This powernecessarily implies the authority to pay

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ation on the part of a partner who acted as agent in receiving money for a given purpose, for which he has rendered no accounting, such agent is responsible only for the losses which, by a violation of the provisions of the law, he 27 incurred. This being an obligation to pay in cash, there are no other losses than the legal interest, which interest is not due except from the time of the judicial demand, or, in the present case, from the filing of the complaint. (Arts. 1108 and 1100, Civil Code.) Article 1688 is inapplicable in this case, in so far as it provides "that the partnership is liable to every partner for the amounts he may have disbursed on account of the same and for the proper interest," for the reason that no other money than that contributed as is involved. As in the partnership there were two administrators or agents liable for the above­named amount, article 1138 of the Civil Code has been invoked; this latter deals with debts of a partnership where the obligation is not a joint one, as is likewise provided by article 1723 of said code with respect to the liability of two or more agents with respect to the return of the money that they received from their principal. Municipal Council of Iloilo v. Evangelista, 55 Phil 290 (1930) CAMERINO DOCTRINE: Art. 1894. The responsibility of two or more agents, even though they have been appointed simultaneously, is not solidary, if solidarity has not been expressly stipulated; when a person appoints two attorneys­in­fact independently, the consent of the one will not be required to validate the acts of the other unless that appears positively to have been the principal's intention NOTE: IN THE FACTS, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE 2ND ATTORNEY­IN­FACT IN RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE. ONLY ON THE SC DECISION. FACTS: the CFI of Iloilo rendered judgment in a civil case wherein the appellant herein, Tan Ong Sze Vda. de Tan Toco was the plaintiff, and the municipality of Iloilo the defendant, and the former sought to recover of the latter the value of...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online