CASE # 91. SY vs.

CA, 313 SCRA 328

VICENTE SY, TRINIDAD PAULINO, 6BS TRUCKING CORPORATION, and SBT
1
TRUCKING CORPORATION,
petitioners, vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JAIME SAHOT, respondents G.R. No. 142293, February
27, 2003

FACTS: Sometime in 1958, private respondent Jaime Sahot started working as a truck helper for
petitioners family-owned trucking business named Vicente Sy Trucking. In 1965, he became a truck
driver of the same family business, renamed T. Paulino Trucking Service, later 6Bs Trucking Corporation
in 1985, and thereafter known as SBT Trucking Corporation since 1994. Throughout all these changes in
names and for 36 years, private respondent continuously served the trucking business of petitioners. In
April 1994, Sahot was already 59 years old. He had been incurring absences as he was suffering from
various ailments and had been filed a week-long leave.

On September 13, 1994, Sahot file with NLRC NCR Arbitration Branch a complaint for illegal dismissal
and prayed for the recovery of separation and attorneys fees against the herein petitioners. They
contended that private respondent was not illegally dismissed as a driver because he was in fact
petitioners industrial partner. The Labor Arbiter ruked that there was no illegal dismissal in Sahot case
that petitioners and private respondent were industrial partners.

On appeal, the NLRC modified the judgment of the Labor Arbiter. It declared that private respondent
was an employee not an industrial partner. Petitioners assailed the decision of the NLRC before the CA.
It held that private respondent was indeed an employee of petitioners since 1958.

ISSUE: WON the private respondent was an industrial partner of petitioner.

HELD: No. the private respondent is not an industrial partner of the petitioner but only an employee
from 1958 to 1994. A computation of the age of complainant shows that he was only twenty-three (23)
years when he started working with the latter as truck helper.

Private respondent on his part denies that he was ever an industrial partner of petitioners. There was no
written agreement, no proof that he received a share in petitioners profits, nor was there anything to
show he had any participation with respect to the running of the business.

Article 1767 of the Civil Code states that in a contract of partnership two or more persons bind
themselves to contribute money, property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing
the profits among themselves. Not one of these circumstances is present in this case. No written
agreement exists to prove the partnership between the parties. Private respondent did not contribute
money, property or industry for the purpose of engaging in the supposed business. There is no proof
that he was receiving a share in the profits as a matter of course, during the period when the trucking
business was under operation. Neither is there any proof that he had actively participated in the
management, administration and adoption of policies of the business. Thus, the NLRC and the CA did
not err in reversing the finding of the Labor Arbiter that private respondent was an industrial partner
from 1958 to 1994.




CASE # 94. YU vs. NLRC, 224 SCRA 76

BENJAMIN YU, petitioner, vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JADE MOUNTAIN
PRODUCTS COMPANY LIMITED, WILLY CO, RHODORA D. BENDAL, LEA BENDAL, CHIU SHIAN JENG and
CHEN HO-FU, respondents. G.R. No. 97212, June 30, 1993

FACTS: Petitioner Benjamin Yu was formerly the Assistant General Manager of the marble quarrying and
export business operated by a registered partnership with the firm name of "Jade Mountain Products
Company Limited" ("Jade Mountain"). The partnership was originally organized on 28 June 1984 with
Lea Bendal and Rhodora Bendal as general partners and Chin Shian Jeng, Chen Ho-Fu and Yu Chang, all
citizens of the Republic of China (Taiwan), as limited partners. The partnership business consisted of
exploiting a marble deposit found on land owned by the Sps. Ricardo and Guillerma Cruz, under a
Memorandum Agreement dated 26 June 1984 with the Cruz spouses.

Benjamin Yu was hired by virtue of a Partnership Resolution, as Assistant General Manager, He actually
managed the operations and finances of the business; he had overall supervision of the workers at the
marble quarry and took charge of the preparation of papers relating to the exportation of the firm's
products.

Sometime in 1988, without the knowledge of Benjamin Yu, the general partners Lea Bendal and
Rhodora Bendal sold and transferred their interests in the partnership to private respondent Willy Co
and to one Emmanuel Zapanta. Mr. Yu Chang, a limited partner, also sold and transferred his interest in
the partnership to Willy Co. Between Mr. Emmanuel Zapanta and himself, private respondent Willy Co
acquired the great bulk of the partnership interest. The partnership now constituted solely by Willy Co
and Emmanuel Zapanta continued to use the old firm name of Jade Mountain, The actual operations of
the business enterprise continued as before. All the employees of the partnership continued working in
the business, all, save petitioner Benjamin Yu as it turned out.

On 21 December 1988. Benjamin Yu filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and recovery of unpaid salaries
accruing from November 1984 to October 1988, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees,
against Jade Mountain, Mr. Willy Co and the other private respondents. The partnership and Willy Co
denied petitioner's charges, contending in the main that Benjamin Yu was never hired as an employee
by the present or new partnership.

ISSUE: whether the partnership which had hired petitioner Yu as Assistant General Manager had been
extinguished and replaced by a new partnerships composed of Willy Co and Emmanuel Zapanta.

HELD: The legal effect of the changes in the membership of the partnership was the dissolution of the
old partnership which had hired petitioner in 1984 and the emergence of a new firm composed of Willy
Co and Emmanuel Zapanta in 1987.

The applicable law in this connection of which the NLRC seemed quite unaware is found in the Civil
Code provisions relating to partnerships. Article 1828 of the Civil Code provides as follows:

Art. 1828. The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the partners caused by any
partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on as distinguished from the winding up of the business.

Article 1830 of the same Code must also be noted:
Art. 1830. Dissolution is caused:
(1) without violation of the agreement between the partners;
(b) by the express will of any partner, who must act in good faith, when no definite term or particular
undertaking is specified;
(2) in contravention of the agreement between the partners, where the circumstances do not permit a
dissolution under any other provision of this article, by the express will of any partner at any time;