Rosendo Estoye, Jr. vs. Antonio Rola, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 3130. August 5, 1988.] ROSENDO ESTOYE, JR. , petitioner , vs . ANTONIO ROLA and FRANCISCO SALINAS , respondents . D E C I S I O N Petitioner in his petition filed with this Commission on March 3, 1987, sought for the revocation of the partnership registered as "Restorer Bonanza Marketing Co.", on the ground of fraud in that his alleged signature in the Articles of Partnership was forged. In the same petition, he prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the respondents from pursuing the business operations of Restorer Bonanza Marketing Co. cdll After due notice, hearings were held on the petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, where both parties presented testimonial, as well as documentary evidence. The writ of preliminary injunction applied for was issued when it was established, through the testimony of respondent Antonio S. Rola, on cross-examination that the signatures of the petitioner in the Articles of Partnership were not his. Thus, on cross-examination respondent Rola testified: "Q. Now, when you said the signatures appearing on the typewritten Rosendo Estoye, marked as exhibit "F-1-A" was signed for Estoye, you admit that is not the signature of Estoye? "A. Yes, sir but that was his direction." (T.S.N. 12/1/81, p. 32) Aside from this petition, criminal charges for falsification of public documents have been filed by the petitioner against the respondents in different fora. While the contending parties have manifested their intention to present additional evidence on the main case, they ultimately opted to adopt their respective evidence presented in the hearing of the injunction incident as their evidence-in-chief for the main case. Considering that no other evidence was presented on the main case, the findings in the "Order" dated March 30, 1988, granting the application for a writ of preliminary injunction remain unrefuted. And considering that a partnership is a contract in itself its validity had been vitiated by the fact that petitioner, at any point in time, never gave his consent, which is one of the essential elements for the validity of a contract of partnership. Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: a) declaring the partnership "Restorer Bonanza Marketing, Co." as void ab initio and the corresponding "Certificate of Registration" as having been cancelled and revoked; b) making permanent the preliminary injunction earlier issued against the herein respondents. Let copy of this decision be furnished the Corporate and Legal Department for its information and guidance and another copy for Records Division to be attached and to form part of the record of partnership concerned. LibLex SO ORDERED. (SGD.) BERNARDO T. ESPEJO Hearing Officer