Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Guy V. Gacott G.R. No. 206147, January 13, 2016 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Bartolome
    1) A plaintiff filed a case against a supposed corporation and was awarded a judgment, but later discovered the defendant was actually a partnership. 2) When attempting to execute the writ, the sheriff attached properties owned by the partners. One partner, Guy, filed a motion to lift the attachment on his personal property. 3) The court held that while a partnership is a separate juridical entity from its partners, the judgment was not binding on the partners as they were not parties to the original case. Therefore, it was improper for the sheriff to attach the partner's personal properties in executing the judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Guy V. Gacott G.R. No. 206147, January 13, 2016 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Bartolome
    44 views1 page
    1) A plaintiff filed a case against a supposed corporation and was awarded a judgment, but later discovered the defendant was actually a partnership. 2) When attempting to execute the writ, the sheriff attached properties owned by the partners. One partner, Guy, filed a motion to lift the attachment on his personal property. 3) The court held that while a partnership is a separate juridical entity from its partners, the judgment was not binding on the partners as they were not parties to the original case. Therefore, it was improper for the sheriff to attach the partner's personal properties in executing the judgment.

    Original Description:

    Remedial Law case

    Original Title

    Batch 1 No. 33 Guy v. Gacott

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) A plaintiff filed a case against a supposed corporation and was awarded a judgment, but later discovered the defendant was actually a partnership. 2) When attempting to execute the writ, the sheriff attached properties owned by the partners. One partner, Guy, filed a motion to lift the attachment on his personal property. 3) The court held that while a partnership is a separate juridical entity from its partners, the judgment was not binding on the partners as they were not parties to the original case. Therefore, it was improper for the sheriff to attach the partner's personal properties in executing the judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views1 page

    Guy V. Gacott G.R. No. 206147, January 13, 2016 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Bartolome
    1) A plaintiff filed a case against a supposed corporation and was awarded a judgment, but later discovered the defendant was actually a partnership. 2) When attempting to execute the writ, the sheriff attached properties owned by the partners. One partner, Guy, filed a motion to lift the attachment on his personal property. 3) The court held that while a partnership is a separate juridical entity from its partners, the judgment was not binding on the partners as they were not parties to the original case. Therefore, it was improper for the sheriff to attach the partner's personal properties in executing the judgment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GUY V.

    GACOTT
    G.R. No. 206147, January 13, 2016

    Facts:

    Plaintiff filed an action against a supposed corporation. Judgment was rendered in favor of the
    plaintiff and the judgment became final and executory. When the writ of execution was about to be
    implemented, plaintiff found out that the defendant corporation is not really a corporation but a
    partnership. The sheriff found properties owned by the partners and attached the same. Thereafter,
    Guy filed his Motion to Lift Attachment Upon Personalty, arguing that he was not a judgment debtor
    and, therefore, his vehicle could not be attached. RTC issued an order denying Guy's motion. Not
    satisfied, Guy moved for reconsideration of the denial of his motion which was denied hence, he went
    to CA where the latter court dismissed his appeal for the same reasons given by trial court.

    Issue: Whether or not it is proper for the sheriff to attach the properties of the partner?

    Held:

    No. A partnership is a juridical entity that has a distinct and separate personality from the persons
    composing it. In relation to the rules of civil procedure, it is elementary that a judgment of a court is
    conclusive and binding only upon the parties and their successors-in-interest after the commencement
    of the action in court. A decision rendered on a complaint in a civil action or proceeding does not bind or
    prejudice a person not impleaded therein, for no person shall be adversely affected by the outcome of a
    civil action or proceeding in which he is not a party.

    Here, Guy was never made a party to the case. He did not have any participation in the entire
    proceeding until his vehicle was levied upon and he suddenly became QSC's "co-defendant debtor"
    during the judgment execution stage. It is a basic principle of law that money judgments are enforceable
    only against the property incontrovertibly belonging to the judgment debtor. Indeed, the power of the
    court in executing judgments extends only to properties unquestionably belonging to the judgment
    debtor alone.

    You might also like