Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1904 > February 1904 Decisions > G.R. No. 1705 February 23, 1904 - TOMAS BLANCO v. BYRON S. AMBLER

003 Phil 358:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1705. February 23, 1904. ]

TOMAS BLANCO, Petitioner, v. BYRON S. AMBLER, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.

J . M. Rosado and F . C . Fisher, for Petitioner.

Moore & Hixson, for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; COMPLAINT; CERTIORARI. — The petition by a judgment creditor for a writ of certiorari to set aside a void appointment of receiver of the property of the judgment debtor by which he is prevented from executing his judgment is not defective in failing to allege whether the receiver was appointed before or after the petitioner commenced his action.

2. ID.; MANDAMUS; PROHIBITION; CERTIORARI; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. — Cases of mandamus and prohibition take the form of an ordinary action, but upon an application for a writ of certiorari the practice is to issue an order to show cause.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


This is an original action of certiorari in this court, brought under the provisions of sections 514 and 217 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon the filing of the complaint a temporary injunction was issued on January 12, 1904, under the provisions of section 517. On January 13 this court made an order that the defendant appear within seven days and show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be granted. The defendant appeared and showed cause by means only of a demurrer to the complaint.

The matter sought to be reviewed in this case is the order of the defendant appointing a receiver of the property of Tan Tongco in the case of Sergia Reyes v. Tan Tongco.

In the case of Bonaplata v. Ambler (1 Off. Gaz., 607), 1 which involved the same order, this court held that the defendant had no power to appoint the receiver, and that in making such appointment he was acting in excess of his jurisdiction. It necessarily followed that the order was void. The only thing left undecided in that case was the effect of this void order upon those creditors who had assented to it.

The rights of the plaintiff would be the same whether the order appointing the receiver were made before or after the plaintiff commenced his action; it was therefore not necessary to allege in the complaint when it was commenced.

The defendant’s demurrer was based (1) upon a misjoinder of parties; (2) upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for five specified reasons, and (3) because the complaint was vague and unintelligible. What has been said covers the five reasons specified under the second ground. The plaintiff admitting that the demurrer was well taken on the first ground, has asked leave to present, and the defendant has agreed that he may present, an amended complaint in which the defendant McMicking is eliminated as a defendant.

The third ground, that the complaint is unintelligible, is not well taken.

The court has adopted a different practice in cases of certiorari from that adopted in case of mandate and prohibition. The latter take the form of an ordinary action. In the former an order to show cause is issued and upon its return, if no sufficient cause is shown, the order provided for by section 217 is issued. In the present case we hold that the cause shown is insufficient and the order provided for in the last named section must issue.

It is therefore ordered that the proposed amended complaint filed on the 8th day of February, 1904, stand as the complaint in this action, that the defendant, Byron S. Ambler, as judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, cause to be certified to this court within ten days from this date a transcript of the record and proceedings which in any way relate to the appointment or action of the receiver had or taken in the case of Sergia Reyes v. Tan Tongco, No. 1451, in the Court of First Instance of Manila, that the same may be reviewed by this court, and in the meantime to desist from any further proceedings in the matter to be reviewed until the further order of this court.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Coopper, Mapa, McDonough and Johnson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1904 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 1561 & 1562 February 2, 1904 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. A. S. WATSON & CO. ET AL.

    003 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 1300 February 3, 1904 - E. C. McCULLOUGH v. R. AENLLE & Co.

    003 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 1444 February 4, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERO ALCANTARA, ET AL.

    003 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 1693 February 5, 1904 - FRANCISCO GARCIA v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    004 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. 1464 February 11, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO OANGOANG, ET AL.

    003 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 1522 February 11, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. POLICARPO IDICA

    003 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 1548 February 11, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO GARCIA, ET AL.

    003 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. 1368 February 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FRED FREIMUTH

    003 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 1399 February 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. NORBERTO OBREGON

    003 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 1513 February 12, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CASIANO SADIAN

    003 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 1437 February 13, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON AMBATA, ET AL.

    003 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 1460 February 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO GUILLERMO

    003 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 1478 February 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    003 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 1480 February 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    003 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 1509 February 16, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS GLORIA

    003 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 1446 February 17, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO DE LA CRUZ

    003 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 1481 February 17, 1903

    UNITED STATES v. LIBERATO EXALTACION, ET AL.

    003 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 1092 February 18, 1904 - LUIS QUERIDO v. RAMON FLORENDO, ET AL.

    003 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 1372 February 20, 1903

    JOHN E. SPRINGER v. ARTHUR F. ODLIN

    003 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 1434 February 23, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO DE LOS REYES

    003 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. 1532 February 23, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO GASAL

    003 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 1705 February 23, 1904 - TOMAS BLANCO v. BYRON S. AMBLER

    003 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 1293 February 23, 1904 - ILDELFONSO DORONILA v. JOSE LOPEZ

    003 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 1498 February 24, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN CABUENAS

    003 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 1493 February 25, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO USIS, ET AL.

    003 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 1506 February 26, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. FACUNDO PINEDA, ET AL.

    003 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 1482 February 29, 1904 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO FERNANDEZ

    003 Phil 380