Dan Fue Leung v. IAC

Dan Fue Leung v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court and Leung Yiu G.R. No. 7092 !anuar" #$% $9&9 Fa't() This case originated from a complaint filed by respondent Leung Yiu to recover  the sum equivalent to twenty-two percent (22%) of the annual profits derived from the operation of un !ah "anciteria since #ctober$ &'' from petitioner an ue Leung*

The un !ah "anciteria$ a restaurant$ located at lorentino Torres treet$ ta* +ru,$ anila$ anila$ was establishe established d sometim sometime e in #ctober #ctober$$ &''* &''* .t was registered registered as a single single proprietorship and its licenses and permits were issued to and in favor of an ue Leung as the sole proprietor* proprietor* /bout /bout the time the un !ah "anciteria started to become operational$ Leung Yiu gave "0$111*11 as his contribution to the partnership* This is evidenced by a receipt wherein an ue Leung acnowledged his acceptance of the "0$11 "0$111* 1*11 11 by affi affi3in 3ing g his signa signatur ture e there thereto* to* The The recei receipt pt was was writt written en in +hine +hinese se characters so that the trial court commissioned an interpreter in the person of s* lorence Yap to translate its contents into 4nglish* !itnesses o ia and /ntonio /h 5eng corroborated Yiu 6s testimony to the effect that they were both present when the receipt was signed* ia further testified that he himself received from Leung a similar  receipt evidencing delivery of his own investment in another amount of "0$111*11* urthermore$ the Yiu from the Leung the amount of "2$111*11 covered by the latter7s 4quitable 4quitable 8aning +orporation +hec 9o* ::;&0<1-8 ::;&0<1-8 from the profits of the operation of the restaurant for the year &<0* Leung denied having received Yiu the amount of "0$111*11* /llegedly$ he used his savings from his salaries as an employee at +amp totsenberg in +lar ield and later  as waiter at the Toho =estaurant amounting to a little more than "2$111*11 as capital in establishing un !ah "anciteria* To bolster his contention$ Leung presented various government licenses and permits showing the un !ah "anciteria was and still is a single proprietorship solely owned and operated by himself alone* ue Leung also flatly denied having issued 4quitable 8aning +orporation7s +hec 9o* ::;&0<1 8 in the amount of "2$111*11*  /s between the conflicting evidence evidence of the parties$ the trial court gave credence credence to that of the plaintiff$ Yiu* Leung appealed the trial court7s amended decision to the then .ntermediate /ppellate +ourt affirming it in toto* 8oth the trial court and the appellate court found that the Yiu is a partner in the setting up and operations of the panciteria* 5ence$ the two courts declared that the private petitioner is entitled to a share of the annual profits of the restaurant* Leung argues that the courts erroneously interpreted 7financial assistance7 to mean the contribution of capital by a partner to a partnership*> 5e also raises the issue of prescription since the alleged receipt is dated #ctober $

&'' and the complaint was filed only on ?uly :$ &<; or after the lapse of twenty-two (22) years$ nine (&) months and twelve (2) days considering no written demands were ever made by Yiu* I((ue)  whether or not the private respondent is a partner of the petitioner in the establishment of un !ah "anciteria* Ruling) The lower courts did not err in construing the complaint as one wherein the private respondent asserted his rights as partner of the petitioner in the establishment of  the un !ah "anciteria$ notwithstanding the use of the term financial assistance therein* !e agree with the appellate court7s observation to the effect that >*** given its ordinary meaning$ financial assistance is the giving out of money to another without the e3pectation of any returns therefrom7* .t connotes an ex gratia  dole out in favor of  someone driven into a state of destitution* 8ut this circumstance under which the "0$111*11 was given to the petitioner does not obtain in this case*7The complaint e3plicitly stated that >as a return for such financial assistance$ plaintiff would be entitled to twenty-two percentum (22%) of the annual profit derived from the operation of the said panciteria*7

The private respondent is a partner of the petitioner in un !ah "anciteria* The requisites of a partnership which are @ ) two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money$ property$ or industry to a common fundA and 2) intention on the part of  the partners to divide the profits among themselves (/rticle 
=egarding the prescriptive period within which the private respondent may demand an accounting$ /rticles ;1B$ ;1<$ and ;1& show that the right to demand an accounting e3ists as long as the partnership e3ists* "rescription begins to run only upon the dissolution of the partnership when the final accounting is done*