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-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1261 August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3059 August 2, 1949 - VICENTE G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-1494 August 3, 1949 - ALLISON J. GIBBS v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1514 August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-1826 August 5, 1949 - JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUELA TABIA

    084 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-48346 August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

    084 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1438 August 11, 1949 - SOCORRO C. VDA. DE ARANETA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP.

    084 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL

    084 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. L-2062 August 11, 1949 - JESUS B. LOPEZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-1367 August 16, 1949 - PIO PORTEA v. JACINTO PABELLON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-1892 August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1956 August 16, 1949 - LETICIA H. CALDERA, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO BALCUEBA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-3025 August 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR.

    084 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949 - PEDRO SYQUIA, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    084 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1029 August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS

    084 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-2016 August 23, 1949 - RICHARD THOMAS FITZSIMMONS v. ATLANTIC, GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA.

    084 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-2035 August 23, 1949 - ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF POSTS

    084 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-1761 August 24, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE LEELIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-1544 August 25, 1949 - F. V. LARRAGA, ET AL. v. EULOGIA B. BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2766 August 25, 1949 - PABLO P. ROBATON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2828 August 25, 1949 - JOAQUIN GOZUN, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

    084 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-1760 August 26, 1949 - MARIA MOLATO, ET AL. v. CELEDONIA ARCOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. L-2372 August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1617 August 29, 1949 - PANFILO B. MORALES, ET AL. v. OSCAR VENTANILLA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 459

  • G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA

    084 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-1563 August 30, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE GO v. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-1542 August 30, 1949 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-1485 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DESLATE

    084 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-1442 August 30, 1949 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-2166 August 30, 1949 - ESTRELLA LEDESMA v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    084 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2452 August 30, 1949 - LORENZO LLAMOSO v. VICENTE FERRER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-2894 August 30, 1949 - BUCRA CORP. v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG. ET AL.

    084 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3063 August 30, 1949 - MACARIO QUINTERO, ET AL. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3226 August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-1358 August 31, 1949 - MARIETA J. ROTEA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-1827 August 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-2262 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2345 August 31, 1949 - SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    084 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2480 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR

    084 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2754 August 31, 1949 - FIDEL ABRIOL v. VICENTE HOMERES

    084 Phil 525

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-3226   August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 499

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-3226. August 30, 1949.]

    DOMINADOR S. PONGOS, Petitioner, v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Rizal City Branch) and THE SHERIFF OF RIZAL, Respondents.

    Bausa & Ampil for Petitioner.

    No appearance for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. RECEIVER; APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER DOES NOT DISPLACE VESTED CONTRACT LIENS. — The appointment of a receiver vests in the court no absolute control over the property and no general authority to displace vested contract liens, and while a receiver will be appointed only on the application of one who appears to have an interest in the subject matter, yet when the appointment is made the receiver is a mere officer of the court, and the appointment creates no lien in favor of any of the parties applying for it and gives no advantage or preference to such parties over other claimants to the property; it does not determine the rights of the parties.

    2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; COUNTERCLAIM, NATURE OF; RIGHTS OF COUNTERCLAIMANT. — A counterclaim may be considered a complaint against the plaintiff, for it is rather in the nature of a cross-complaint than of a counterclaim under the old Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore a counterclaimant or plaintiff in the counterclaim may obtain from the court an order for delivery to it of personal properties he seeks to recover in its counterclaim from the plaintiff.


    D E C I S I O N


    FERIA, J.:


    This is a special civil action of certiorari filed with this Court by the petitioner against the respondent Judge Bienvenido A. Tan to set aside an order of the respondent judge for the delivery by the petitioner of the machineries, equipments, and appurtenances of the Pasay Ice Plant and Cold Storage to the other Respondent.

    According to the facts alleged in the petition, the petitioner instituted an action against the respondent Hidalgo Enterprises Inc., civil case No. 472 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, to cancel or rescind the contract between them by which the petitioner turned over and delivered to the respondent the full management, operation, possession and control of the Pasay Ice Plant and Storage, and conveyed to said respondent, by way of chattel mortgage, all the machineries, equipment, accessories and the certificate of public convenience of said plant, as security for the payment of the advances of money made by the respondent to pay the outstanding debts and obligation due from the petitioner to other persons on account of said Ice Plant and Cold Storage.

    The defendant Hidalgo Enterprises Inc., during the pendency of the suit, secured first a writ of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff, now petitioner, to surrender the possession of the said Pasay Ice Plant and Cold Storage to the said defendant, and afterwards, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff, the respondent judge reconsidered its order and appointed a receiver, who qualified as such and took possession of said properties on March 30, 1948, and died in February, 1949.

    On or about June 25, 1945, before another receiver had been appointed, the defendant Hidalgo Enterprises Inc. amended its answer and set up a counterclaim for the recovery of money due from the plaintiff-petitioner to the defendant-respondent and the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage above mentioned, and as a necessary step for the foreclosure asked the court to order the plaintiff who was in possession of the machineries, equipment, and appurtenances of the Pasay Ice Plant and Cold Storage, to deliver them to the defendant, which was granted by the court, and hence the filing of the present action of certiorari.

    The petitioner contends that the respondent judge exceeded in the exercise of his jurisdiction in ordering the delivery of the personal property mortgaged to the respondent, on two grounds: First, because said properties were in custodia legis and the respondent judge had no authority to order their delivery to the defendant; and second, because the respondent Hidalgo Enterprises, being a defendant in the civil action No. 472, cannot ask for the delivery of personal property, since such order may be secured only by the plaintiff according to Rule 62 of the Rules of Court.

    Petitioner’s contentions are untenable. As to the first ground, "The appointment of a receiver vests in the court no absolute control over the property and no general authority to displace vested contract liens, and while a receiver will be appointed only on the application of one who appears to have an interest in the subject-matter, yet when the appointment is made the receiver is a mere officer of the court, and the appointment creates no lien in favor of any of the parties applying for it and gives no advantage or preference to such parties over other claimants to the property; it does not determine the rights of the parties,." . . (Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, Vol. 34, p. 180).

    And as to the second ground, it is obvious that the defendant Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., with respect to the plaintiff’s complaint, is the plaintiff in the counterclaim filed by him against the plaintiff. "A counterclaim is termed a mutual petition, because both parties sue each other mutually in the same action, each of them assuming the double role of plaintiff and defendant, before the trial judge, and the two suits are brought under a single proceeding where both actions are tried at the same time and finally determined in one and the same judgment" (De la Peña v. Hidalgo, 20 Phil., 323). If a counterclaim was considered a counter suit filed by the defendant against the plaintiff, the counterclaim of the defendant respondent Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., may a fortiori be considered a complaint against the plaintiff-petitioner, for it is rather in the nature of a cross complaint than of a counterclaim under the old Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the respondent Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., as counterclaimant or plaintiff in the counterclaim may obtain from the respondent judge an order for delivery to it of the personal properties he seeks to recover in its counterclaim from the plaintiff.

    Wherefore the petition for certiorari is dismissed.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-3226   August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 499


    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