Civil Law

Behn, Meyer & Co. vs Rosatzin

Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. 2715 – 5 Phil. 660 – Civil Law – Partnership – Estoppel of the Firm’s Debtor 

Rosatzin was the bookkeeper of the firm Behn, Meyer & Co. from 1901 to 1903. When Rosatzin left the firm’s employ, it was discovered that he owe the firm P686.24 pesos in 1901 – this was evidenced by the firm’s books. Rosatzin denied the said indebtedness as he claims that after 1901, he was employed for two more years and he received his monthly salary regularly so this must prove that his indebtedness is paid otherwise it would have been deducted from his salary. Rosatzin also advanced the argument that the existence of the partnership was not proved – that is, that there was no proof to show that the partnership had been organized in accordance with the Code of Commerce.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rosatzin is correct.

HELD: No. His first argument was not proved. It is an affirmative allegation and the burden of proving so is upon Rosatzin and is not dependent on the presence or absence of evidence by the firm.

His second argument is likewise not merited. There was evidence presented by the defendant in the case that a partnership known as Behn, Meyer & Co. existed in 1900. The defendant contracted with the partnership in 1901 and subsequent years, and is now estopped to say that it was not a partnership.

Read full text here.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply