Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the JVA by failing to complete the condominium project. The Housing and
Land Use (HLU) arbiter ruled in favor of respondents, rescinding
the contract and ordering petitioner and PPGI to pay refund, interest,
damages, attorneys fees and administrative fines. The HLURB Board of
Commissioners
aff irmed
the
HLUs
order.
Motion
for
Reconsideration (MR) was denied. The case was subsequently raised to
the Office of the President (OP) which rendered a decision dismissing
petitioners appeal on the ground that the latters appeal memorandum was
filed out of time and that the HLURB Board committed no grave abuse of
discretion in rendering the appealed decision.MR was also denied.
Petitioner filed before the CA a motion for extension within which to file its
petition for review, claiming heavy workload of its counsel. This was denied
by the CA. MR was denied for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition
before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not J. Tiosejo Investment Corp. is exempt from
liability by claiming it was not privy to the Contract to Sell executed
by its JV partner, PPGI and the Spouses Ang
Held:
The Supreme Court held that J. Tiosejo Investment Corp. cannot
avoid liability by claiming that it was not in any way privy to the Contracts
to Sell executed by PPGI and respondents. It was stated in its ruling that a
joint venture is considered as a form of partnership, and as such, it should
be governed by the law of partnerships.
Under Article 1824 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, all partners
are solidarily liable with the partnership for everything chargeable to the
partnership, including loss or injury caused to a third person or penalties
incurred due to any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the
ordinary course of the business of the partnership or with the authority of
his co-partners. Whether innocent or guilty, all the partners are solidarily
liable with the partnership itself.