SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-9594           February 18, 1914
F. C. AREY, ET AL. vs. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL. -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-9594 February 18, 1914

F. C. AREY, ET AL. Petitioners, vs. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL., Respondents.

Bruce Lawrence, Ross, and Block, for petitioners.
D. R. Williams, for respondent Insular Lumber Co.
Judge Wislizenus, in his own behalf.

TRENT, J. :chanrobles virtual law library

This is an original action in certiorari seeking to set aside the appointment of a receiver for the plaintiffs' business.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It appears from the pleadings that the defendant company is carrying the herein plaintiff on its books for a considerable amount. But that the latter assumed the indebtedness due the defendant company from the S. L. Joseph Lumber Yard, and have also incurred additional indebtedness by the purchase of large quantities of the defendant company's products, for which they have not yet paid, does not entitle the defendant company to ask for the appointment of a receiver.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In Bonaplata vs. Ambler (2 Phil. Rep., 392), this court, is referring to section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, said: "That section authorizes the appointment of a receiver (1) in certain corporation cases; (2) where the plaintiff has an interest in the property or fund which is the subject of the action, etc.; (3) in an action to foreclose a mortgage; (4) and, finally, whenever in other cases it shall appear to the court that the appointment of a receiver is the most feasible means of preserving and administering the property which is the subject of the litigation during the pendency of the action." chanrobles virtual law library

A later case of the same tenor is Rocha & Co. vs. Crossfield (6 Phil. Rep., 355), in which the court said: "The case at bar does not fall within any of the provisions of this section. There is no allegation in the complaint, as has been before stated, that the plaintiff is the owner of any of the property of Rocha & Co. nor is there any facts alleged in the complaint from which it could be inferred that he was the owner of such property or had any lien thereon." chanrobles virtual law library

While the defendant company, in its complaint before the Court of First Instance, alleged that lumber delivered to the plaintiffs under the contract of June 1, 1913, was for sale on consignment only, we cannot overlook the fact that the eight paragraph of that contract states that "The company (The Insular Lumber Company) agrees to sell to Arey & Laing, such lumber as may be necessary for their business, at the following prices. . . ." chanrobles virtual law library

Again, in Strong vs. Van Buskirk-Crook Co. (10 Phil. Rep., 190), this court said: "In Bonaplata vs. Ambler (2 Phil. Rep., 392), it was held that . . . in an action for debt, not in aid of a lien upon specific property, the plaintiff, before the return of his execution unsatisfied, has no such interest in the defendant's property as to authorize the appointment of a receiver under section 174 of the same code." chanrobles virtual law library

A receiver cannot be appointed merely for the purpose of assisting in the collection of debts.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

For these reasons it is adjudged that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction in appointing a receiver for the plaintiffs business, and all the proceedings taken therein are hereby annulled. Let judgment be entered accordingly, with the costs of this action against the defendant. The Insular Lumber Company.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Arellano, C.J., Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.