Rojas v. Maglana

Summary

This case involved a partnership dispute between timber business partners Rojas and Maglana over their Eastcoast Development Enterprises partnership. After forming a registered partnership in 1955, they added third partner Pahamotang in 1956, who withdrew in 1957. The central issue was whether the original registered partnership continued after Pahamotang's withdrawal or if a new de facto partnership was formed. Rojas claimed entitlement to equal profit sharing under the original agreement, while abandoning his partnership duties and entering a competing business. The Supreme Court held that the original registered partnership continued to exist and profits should be shared equally as originally agreed, but upheld Rojas' liabilities for failing to contribute capital and abandoning partnership obligations. The decision clarified that even with justified cause for dissolution, partnership liquidation must follow the original partnership terms.