This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-02-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| G.R. No. 196113 is a petition for review[6] assailing the Decision[7] promulgated on 8 December 2010 as well as the Resolution[8] promulgated on 14 March 2011 by the CTA EB in CTA EB No. 624. In its Decision, the CTA EB reversed the 8 January 2010 Decision[9] as well as the 7 April 2010 Resolution[10] of the CTA Second Division and granted the CIR's petition for review in CTA Case No. 7574. The CTA EB dismissed, for having been prematurely filed, Taganito Mining Corporation's (Taganito) judicial claim for P8,365,664.38 tax refund or credit. | |||||
|
2000-10-03 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| In the instant case, we find private respondent's arguments to be well-taken. Where circumstances taken singly may be inadequate to prove the intent to form a partnership, nevertheless, the collective effect of these circumstances may be such as to support a finding of the existence of the parties' intent.[36] Yet, in the case at bench, even the aforesaid circumstances when taken together are not persuasive indicia of a partnership. They only tend to show that Tan Eng Kee was involved in the operations of Benguet Lumber, but in what capacity is unclear. We cannot discount the likelihood that as a member of the family, he occupied a niche above the rank-and-file employees. He would have enjoyed liberties otherwise unavailable were he not kin, such as his residence in the Benguet Lumber Company compound. He would have moral, if not actual, superiority over his fellow employees, thereby entitling him to exercise powers of supervision. It may even be that among his duties is to place orders with suppliers. Again, the circumstances proffered by petitioners do not provide a logical nexus to the conclusion desired; these are not inconsistent with the powers and duties of a manager, even in a business organized and run as informally as Benguet Lumber Company. | |||||