Short answer. Yes. Article 1825 on partnership by estoppel makes a person liable who consents to being represented as a partner, if creditors gave credit on the faith of that representation. Because you consented and the representation was public, creditors who relied on it may hold you liable even without proof they personally heard it.
What the law says
When a person, by words spoken or written or by conduct, represents himself, or consents to another representing him to anyone, as a partner in an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, he is liable to any such persons to whom such representation has been made, who has, on the faith of such representation, given credit to the actual or apparent partnership
Civil Code, Article 1825 — Partnership by Estoppel. Read the full provision →
What the law says
if he has made such representation or consented to its being made in a public manner he is liable to such person, whether the representation has or has not been made or communicated to such person so giving credit by or with the knowledge of the apparent partner making the representation or consenting to its being made
Civil Code, Article 1825 — Partnership by Estoppel. Read the full provision →
Consenting to the representation is enough
Article 1825 does not require that you yourself made the representation; it applies just as much when a person consents to another representing him to anyone, as a partner in an existing partnership or with one or more persons not actual partners, and he becomes liable to anyone who, on the faith of that representation, extended credit to the apparent partnership. Knowing about the representation and staying silent instead of correcting it can itself amount to consent, since the law is concerned with whether you allowed the impression to stand, not only whether you personally voiced it.
Why the public nature of the representation matters here
Because the representation was made in a public manner, the article imposes liability regardless of whether the specific creditor actually heard it directly from you or knew you personally consented to it: if he has made such representation or consented to its being made in a public manner he is liable to such person, whether the representation has or has not been made or communicated to such person so giving credit. This broadens your exposure beyond people you dealt with directly, reaching any creditor who relied on the public impression that you were a partner, whether or not they can trace the representation specifically back to you.
What kind of liability results
The article distinguishes two outcomes: when a partnership liability actually results, the person who consented to the representation is liable as though he were an actual member of the partnership, meaning the same exposure a real partner would carry for that obligation. When no true partnership liability results, liability instead runs pro rata among those who consented to the representation, or separately if only one person consented. Either way, the creditor who genuinely relied on the representation and extended credit on the strength of it has a real claim against you personally.
What this means for you going forward
Because your silence in the face of a known, public representation can itself count as consent, the safest course once you become aware that someone is holding you out as their partner is to correct the impression clearly and promptly, rather than assume inaction carries no consequence. Creditors who extended credit while that representation stood, believing they were dealing with an apparent partnership that included you, may have a legitimate basis to pursue you, and correcting the record going forward does not erase liability that already attached to reliance that already occurred.