In April, 1919, Arnaldo F. de  Silva, Guillermo Aboitiz, Vidal  Aboitiz  and Jose Martinez formed "a regular, collective, mercantile partnership" with a capital of P40,000 of which each of the partners  Aboitiz and De Silva furnished one-third.  The partner Jose Martinez was an  industrial partner and furnished no capital; it was provided in the partnership article that  he  was to receive 30 per  cent of the profits  and that his responsibility  for  losses should not exceed the  amount of the profits received by him.

On April 27, 1922, the  partnership,  through its duly authorized representative, Guillermo Aboitiz,  executed a promissory note in favor of the plaintiff, the Pacific Commercial Company,  for the sum of P23,168.71, with interest at 12 per cent per annum until fully paid and an additional sum of 10 per  cent as attorney's fees and costs of collection in the event it became necessary to resort  to judicial proceedings.  As  security for  the payment of  the note, the partnership executed a chattel mortgage in favor of the plaintiff on certain personal property therein described.

For failure of the partnership to pay the debt, the chattel mortgage was foreclosed, the mortgaged property sold, and the proceeds of the  sale, P2,000,  was  paid over to the plaintiff on December 28, 1923.  No further payment on the note-appears  to have been made and, on January 4, 1924, the  present  action was brought for the recovery of the unpaid  balance with interest.   Upon trial, the court below  rendered judgment  in favor  of  the  plaintiff  and against the partnership for the sum of P27,951.68 and for the payment of interest on the capital of P21,168.71 at the rate of 10 per  cent per  annum from the 31st of October, 1924, until paid, together with 10 per cent on the amount due for fees for collection in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid note.  The judgment further  provided that execution should  first issue against the property of the partnership Aboitiz & Martinez and that in the event of the insolvency of the  partnership, it might issue  against the property of the partners De Silva and Aboitiz, and in the event  of  their insolvency,  then  against the property of the industrial partner Jose Martinez.  From this judgment Martinez  appealed to this court  and here maintains that under  article 141 of the Code of Commerce he, as a mere industrial partner, cannot be held responsible for the partnership's debt.

The case is  practically identical with that of the Compañia Maritima  vs. Munoz  (9 Phil., 326),  in which  this court held  the industrial partners  secondarily liable for the debts of the partnership, but on the strength of the vigorous dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Arellano in that case,  the appellant argues that the decision therein was erroneous  and should now be overruled.  With all due respect for the legal acumen of the first  Chief Justice of this Court, we are still of the opinion  that the case was correctly decided.  Article 127 of the Code of Commerce, reads as follows:

"All the members of the general copartnership,  be they or be they not managing partners of the same, are liable personally  and in solidum with all their property for  the results of the transactions made in the name and for the account of  the partnership,  under  the signature  of  the later, and by a person authorized to make use  thereof."

The language  of this article  is clear and specific and must  be taken to mean exactly what it  says, namely, that all the members of a general copartnership are liable with all their property for the results of the duly authorized transactions made in the name and for  the account of the partnership.  On the other hand, article 141, upon which the appellant relies and which provides that "losses shall be computed in the same proportion among the capitalist partners without including the industrial  partners, unless by special  agreement the latter have been constituted as participants therein," is susceptible of two different interpretations of which that given it in the Compañia Maritima case, supra, i. e., that it relates merely to the distribution of losses among the partners themselves in the settlement of the partnership affairs and has no reference to partnership obligations to third parties, appears  to  us to be the more logical.

There is a marked distinction between a liability and a loss, and the inability of a partnership to pay a  debt to a third party  at a particular time does not  necessarily mean that the partnership business, as a whole, has been operated at a loss.  The partnership may have outstanding credits  which for the moment may be  unavailable for the payment  of  debts, but which eventually may  be realized upon and yield profits more than sufficient to cover all losses.  Bearing this in mind it will be found that there in reality is no conflict between the two articles quoted; one speaks of liabilities, the other of losses.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the  appellant.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez,  and Villa-Real,  JJ.,  concur.