Ballado v. Surjit Parmer Singh

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 02-94-4673. June 9, 1994.] MATILDE BALLADO , petitioner , vs . SURJIT PARMER SINGH , respondent . D E C I S I O N For decision is this petition for dissolution of partnership with an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with prayer for damages. The proceedings in the afore-captioned case were conducted ex-parte in view of the respondent's abject and defiant refusal to receive the Orders and Processes of this Commission, and for failure to file an answer within the period prescribed by the Revised Rules thereof. Hence, all evidence presented by the petitioner herein are deemed UNCONTROVERTED and ADMITTED by the respondents. During the hearings conducted for the presentation of petitioner's evidence ex-parte, the following evidence were adduced, to wit: that petitioner Matilde Ballado and respondents Surjit Parmer Singh are partners in MSK Trading Enterprises, Co., Ltd. (MSK), a partnership duly registered with this Commission, that aside from being partners in business, there was an amorous relationship between the two, the result of which was the culmination of the aforesaid partnership; that this partnership is a partly nationalized firm, majority interest of which belongs to the petitioner herein; that as further based on the testimony of the sole witness, petitioner Ballado, MSK acquired real and personal properties in the course of the operations of the partnership, using her share of the profits of the business; that after a time the respondent convinced petitioner herein to allow the former to manage and run the business, to which the petitioner acceded; that while the petitioner and respondent were living together, various domestic problems came about; that due to these problems, the respondent resorted to quarrelling with the petitioner, these quarrels being marked with violence; that as a result thereof, petitioner left the common-law dwelling sometime in November 1993; that while living apart of the respondent, petitioner went back to the principal place of office of MSK to work, but she was refused entry thereto; that after repeated requests and demands to be given access to the premises and the books of the partnership, the respondent still adamantly refused to give in to these requests and demands; that as further testified to be the petitioner, during the operations of the partnership, no dividends were received by her when the partnership was making profit; that as a result of the acts of the respondents, petitioner suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, wounded feelings and a besmirched reputation for which petitioner prayed for moral damages in the sum of P500,000.00; that also by reason of the foregoing, petitioner was forced to litigate before this Commission and secure the services of counsel at an agreed fee of P150,000.00. Going over the evidence presented in support of petitioner's prayer for dissolution of the MSK, this Hearing Officer finds merit in the foregoing prayer. The petitioner has properly established by way of clear and convincing evidence that she has lost all trust and confidence in the respondent as partner. To maintain the partnership at this point would be untenable considering the existence of animosity and hostility between petitioner and respondent. To let the operations of MSK continue at this juncture would only give rise to further conflict between both parties. llcd Insofar as the petitioner's claims of ownership or certain partnership properties are concerned, the following properties have been established as belonging to the petitioner, to wit: 1) Two (2) JUKI high speed sewing machines worth P26,500.00; 2) One (1) set of Encyclopedia worth P41,767.00; 3) One (1) casiotone organ and its corresponding accessories worth P15,140.00; 4) One (1) Sharp Washing Machine valued at P8,300.00; 5) One (1) Sharp Television Set valued at P7,000.00; and 6) Various office furnitures valued at P5,800.00. As to the rest of the partnership properties which are allegedly owned by the petitioner, the latter was not able to present corroborative proof of ownership thereof. Mere testimony of the petitioner as to ownership of these property is insufficient considering that no documentary evidence to prove ownership was presented. Documentary evidence is required to properly establish ownership. Hence, the claims thereto must necessarily fail. Moreover, petitioner has not established, to the satisfaction of this Commission, her rights to moral and exemplary damages prayed for in the petition. Oral testimony of facts which are supposed to entitle petitioner to the aforesaid damages, as has been previously stated, is unavailing. More proof than simple testimony is desired. As far as attorney's fees are concerned, the same is hereby reduced to a reasonable sum considering that petitioner failed to produce any partnership contract which would reveal the actual fees to be paid for counsel's legal services. WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered: 1. ORDERING the DISSOLUTION of the partnership of MSK Trading Enterprises Co., Ltd.; 2. ORDERING the respondent to return immediately the above-enumerated properties or in lieu thereof pay the petitioner their total aggregate value of P104,507.00; 3. ORDERING the respondent to pay the petitioner the sum of P20,000.00 for attorney's fees. LLphil SO ORDERED. (SGD.) EDUARDO P. BAROT Hearing Officer