ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9366 August 1, 1916 - YAP TICO & CO. v. H. C. ANDERSON

    034 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 10010 August 1, 1916 - CHU JAN v. LUCIO BERNAS

    034 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 11371 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CECILIA MEMORACION

    034 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 11497 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO BLANZA

    034 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 11597 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. DARIO PADILLA

    034 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 11634 August 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BARAMBANGAN

    034 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 8452 August 2, 1916 - DEAN C.WORCESTER v. MARTIN OCAMPO

    034 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 11389 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SELLANO

    034 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 11425 August 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NGAN PING

    034 Phil 660

  • G.R. Nos. 10114 & 10137 August 3, 1916 - MELECIO MONTINOLA v. JOSE G. MONTALVO ET AL.

    034 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 11050 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SOON

    034 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 11159 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. 11420 August 7, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. WAN YANG

    034 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 9957 August 8, 1916 - PERFECTO DE LA VEGA ET AL. v. TOMAS BALLILOS (or BALIELOS)

    034 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. 11477 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TORIBIIO ANDAYA

    034 Phil 690

  • G.R. No. 11507 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO DE LOS REYES

    034 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 11510 August 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BAHATAN

    034 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 10712 August 10, 1916 - ANSELMO FERRAZZINI v. CARLOS GSELL

    034 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 11566 August 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 715

  • G.R. No. 11565 August 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE

    034 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 11162 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. F. LULING

    034 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 11530 August 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN PONS

    034 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. 10100 August 15, 1916 - GALO ABRENICA v. MANUEL GONDA

    034 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 11165 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL B. ASENSI

    034 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 11338 August 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. TAN OCO

    034 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. 11480 August 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERTO PANGILION

    034 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 10374 August 18, 1916 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    034 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10891 August 18, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    034 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. 11711 August 18, 1916 - MANUEL CEMBRANO CHAN GUANCO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 10988 August 19, 1916 - ROQUE SAMSON v. BRAULIO GARCIA

    034 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 11488 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LICERIO CASTEN

    034 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11653 August 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GENOVEVA AQUINO

    034 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. 12096 August 22, 1916 - EMILIO DE CASTRO v. FERNANDO SALAS

    034 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. 11401 August 23, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO CRISTOBAL ET AL.

    034 Phil 825

  • G.R. No. 11427 August 23, 1916 - VY LIONG LIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. 11505 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATAOA BUNGAOIL

    034 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. 11737 August 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO JOSE ET AL.

    034 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 11739 August 25, 1916 - CESAR MERCADER v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    034 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. 11986 August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. 11071 August 26, 1916 - S. CHASE DE KRAFFT v. APOLINAR VELEZ

    034 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 10868 August 28, 1916 - LEOCADIO JOAQUIN v. O. MITSUMINE

    034 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. 11267 August 31, 1916 - SEE CHIAT SEE HUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. 11562 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON LAZARO

    034 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. 11772 August 31, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GAN LIAN PO

    034 Phil 880

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11986  August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL<br /><br />034 Phil 850

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11986. August 25, 1916. ]

    MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALES, Petitioner, v. RICHARD CAMPBELL, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, Respondents.

    The petitioner in his own behalf.

    Crossfield & O’Brien for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CERTIORARI; ORDER OF COURT TO RECEIVER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS. — Where it appears that, on the 10th day of July, 1910, Gutierrez Hermanos obtained an attachment against the property of the defendant in an action begun against Oria Hermanos; that the sheriff duly levied the attachment upon property which the plaintiff in the action pointed out to him as the property of the defendant company; that, after the levy had been made, the parties involved in the case agreed that, instead of leaving the property attached in the possession of the sheriff during the trial of the action, they would turn it over to the plaintiff in this case, Manuel Oria y Gonzalez, as a receiver, to hold, keep and preserve the same as the sheriff might do; that, in pursuance of this arrangement, Manuel Oria y Gonzalez composed and subscribed a document containing an inventory of the property attached in which the following statement appears: "I accept the appointment of receiver of the goods above set forth with the exception of the launch Comillas which is in the possession and control of Adolfo Fuster, receiver, and in proof of may acceptance thereof I sign this document;" that the property referred to is still in the possession of the plaintiff; that, on the 12th day of April, 1916, the attorneys of Gutierrez Hermanos made a motion in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge Campbell presiding, praying the court that the said Manuel Oria y Gonzalez be required to render an account of the property which he held as receiver, together with the rents, income, and profits thereof during the time it had been held by him; that the said Manuel Oria y Gonzalez appeared at the hearing of said motion and opposed the same, but that, in spite of such opposition, the court ordered plaintiff to render an account of the property as such receiver, Held: That the court had jurisdiction to make the order and that proceedings for a writ of certiorari to review said order cannot be maintained.

    2. RECEIVERS; JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE TO APPOINT, ETC. — Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction to appoint receivers, to require them to account, and to control them fully and completely in the administration of their affairs as such. This jurisdiction extends to the determination of every question involved in receivership, from that of whether the person is in fact a receiver, to that which may be raised by the ultimate act which a receiver may perform.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This is a proceeding in this court to obtain a writ of certiorari directed to the Honorable Richard Campbell, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, requiring him to sent to this court the record in the case of Gutierrez Hermanos v. Oria Hermanos for review and, upon such review, to declare a certain order issued by said court in said action null and void.

    The complaint alleged that, on the 10th day of July, 1910, Gutierrez Hermanos obtained an attachment against the property of the defendant in an action begun against Oria Hermanos. The sheriff duly levied the attachment upon the property which the plaintiff in the action pointed out to him as the property of the defendant company. After the levy had been made the parties involved in the case agreed that, instead of leaving the property attached in the possession of the sheriff during the trial of the action, they would turn it over to the plaintiff in this case, Manuel Oria y Gonzalez, as a receiver, to hold, keep, and preserve the same as the sheriff might do. In pursuance of this arrangement Manuel Oria y Gonzalez composed and subscribed a document containing an inventory of the property attached in which following statement appears:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "I accept the appointment of receiver of the goods above set forth with the exception of the launch Comillas which is in the possession and control of Adolfo Fuster, receiver, and in proof of my acceptance thereof I sign this document."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The complaint further alleges that the property referred to is still in the possession of the plaintiff; that, on the 12th day of April, 1916, the attorneys of Gutierrez Hermanos made a motion in the Court of First Instance of Manila, Judge Campbell presiding, praying the court that the said Manuel Oria y Gonzalez be required to render an account of the property which he held as receiver, together with the rents, income, and profits thereof during the time it had been held by him; that the said Manuel y Gonzalez appeared at the hearing of said motion and opposed the same, but that, in spite of such opposition, the court ordered plaintiff to render an account of the property as such receiver. It is further alleged that the court of First Instance was without jurisdiction to make the order referred to that the same is null and void and should be vacated and set aside in this proceeding.

    An answer, so called, was duly interposed to the complaint in this case which admits the material facts alleged by the plaintiff. There appearing to be no question of fact at issue the case has been submitted to us determination on much the same theory as if the answer had been a demurrer.

    We are of the opinion that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or to support a petition in certiorari. We have held in many cases that certiorari will not except in cases where the court to which the certiorari is to be directed has acted without or has exceeded his jurisdiction (Government of the Philippine Islands v. Judge of First Instance of Iloilo and Bantillo, ante, p. 157; Arzadon v. Chanco, 14 Phil. Rep., 710; In re Prautch, 1 Phil. Rep., 132; Springer v. Odlin, 3 Phil. Rep., 344; Napa v. Weissenhagen, 29 Phil. Rep., 180; De Fiesta v. Llorente and Manila Railroad Co., 25 Phil. Rep., 554; Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil. Rep., 245; Gala v. Cui and Rodriguez, 25 Phil. Rep., Province of Tarlac v. Gale, 26 Phil. Rep., 338); it being of no consequence that court may have tried as a matter of law or may have made findings of facts against the preponderance of the evidence. In order that certiorari may lie the court must have acted outside of its authority. In the case before us the first question presented on the motion for an accounting was whether or not plaintiff in this proceeding was in fact a receiver or was the owner of the property. The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to determine that question; and, no matter how it resolved the question, it could not be said that he acted outside of its jurisdiction or in excess thereof. The same may be said with regard to the subject of such a motion. Having resolved the question whether Manuel Oria y Gonzalez was in fact a receiver, the determination of whether or not he ought to account follows as a matter of course and is the exercise of the same jurisdiction which authorized the court to decide the initial question. Court of First Instance have jurisdiction to appoint receivers, to require them to account, and to control them fully and completely in the administration of their affairs as such. That being true jurisdiction extends to the determination of every question involved in receiverships from that of whether the person is in fact a receiver to that which may be raised by the ultimate act which a receiver may perform. The resolution of the questions presented by the motion and the order herein objected to are expressly placed by law within the power and authority of Courts of First Instance and the exercise of that authority cannot be said to be without or in excess of their jurisdiction, no matter which way the particular question before the court is decided.

    The complaint is dismissed on the merits, with costs. So ordered.

    Torres, Johnson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11986  August 25, 1916 - MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ v. RICHARD CAMPBELL<br /><br />034 Phil 850


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED