Hongkong Bank v. Jurado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Hongkong Bank filed a suit against Jurado & Co. Don Ricardo Regidor was expressly included in the bankruptcy as a general partner of Jurado & Co. by an order dated April 16, 1895. Regidor filed a motion claiming he was not properly included in the bankruptcy. An order dated April 6, 1898, stated that Regidor's motion should be heard in the ordinary way, without passing on its merits. Procedural History: The plaintiff (Hongkong Bank) moved in April 1903 for the court to assign a hearing date, which was resubmitted on October 15, 1903. Don Basilio Teodoro, the liquidator appointed by the defendants (Jurado & Co.), died on July 12, 1903. The court had previously made an order on March 8, 1902, outlining the procedure for the case, which, if followed, would have led to a trial in August 1902. The plaintiff had filed proofs, pleadings, and briefs, but the defendant had not. The Petition: Don Ricardo Regidor sought to be made a codefendant in the bankruptcy proceedings. The plaintiff moved for the assignment of a hearing date for the case.
Issue(s)
Whether Don Ricardo Regidor, as a general partner included in the bankruptcy, has the right to appear as an individual separate from the firm and be made a codefendant. Whether the death of the liquidator of the defendant firm affects the progress of the suit.
Ruling
The motion of Don Ricardo Regidor to be made a codefendant is denied. The case is ordered to proceed to hearing on its merits in the January term, 1904, with specific directives for the defendant to submit their printed pleadings, proofs, and brief.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Don Ricardo Regidor's right to appear individually: The Court held that Don Ricardo Regidor, having been expressly included in the bankruptcy as a general partner of Jurado & Co. by an order dated April 16, 1895, is represented by the firm. As a partner, he has no right to appear as an individual separate from the firm. The Court noted that if such a right were granted to one partner, it would logically extend to all partners, which would complicate and potentially obstruct the proceedings. The Court found no indication that Regidor's rights would not be protected by the lawyers employed by the firm. The order of April 6, 1898, which Regidor relied upon, merely set his motion for hearing and did not pass upon its merits. The Court found no evidence to suggest that the initial order of April 16, 1895, including him as a general partner, was incorrect. Furthermore, his appearance in court on October 15, 1903, to appoint an attorney to argue for the firm on a motion before the court, indicated his recognition of his status as a partner represented by the firm. On the issue of the death of the liquidator: The Court ruled that the death of Don Basilio Teodoro, the liquidator of the defendant firm Jurado & Co., on July 12, 1903, cannot interfere with the progress of the suit. The defendants in the case are Jurado & Co., not the liquidator. The Court stated that it has no concern with the appointment of a new liquidator. If the defendants do not appoint a new liquidator or select new attorneys, any required notices can be served upon and given to any partner of Jurado & Co. who can be found in the Islands. The Court reiterated the procedural order of March 8, 1902, and directed the defendant firm to submit their printed pleadings, proofs, and brief by December 15, 1903, and file ten copies thereof in the clerk's office, with the case to be placed on the calendar for the January term, 1904, for hearing on its merits.
Main Doctrine
A partner included in a bankruptcy proceeding as a general partner is represented by the firm and has no right to appear as an individual separate from the firm, unless their rights cannot be protected by the firm's counsel. The death of a liquidator does not impede the progress of a suit against the firm itself.