Calixto Duque, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, et al.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-18359             April 29, 1961

CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL., petitioners, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL., respondents.

Lino M. Patajo, Jose W. Diokno and Norberto Quisumbing for petitioners.

R E S O L U T I O N

DIZON, J.:

Before us is a verified petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Calixto Duque and others against the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, Lorenzo B. Camins and Ramon Saura, with a petition that during the pendency of the proceedings, Macario Ofilada, Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila, be appointed exparte second receiver of the properties involved in Civil Case No. 34998 of said court.

It appears that said case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila by Pilar M. Normandy and others against herein petitioners and the Filipinas Merchandising Corporation to set aside and declare unenforceable certain contracts entered into on October 22 and November 25, 1957 by and between World War II Veterans Enterprises and the Filipinas Merchandising Corporation. In its order of September 6, 1960 the court appointed Ramon Saura as receiver for the properties, assets and transactions subject matter of the action. On January 31, 1961 the defendants and intervenors in said case filed a motion for the removal of the receiver upon several grounds, the most serious of which are as follows:

1. That the receiver has shown by actions and in actions that he will not honor the Memorandum of Settlement and Deed of Assignment, Executed on February 2, 1959, a contract valid and subsisting among the defendant WARVETS, Filipinas Merchandising Corporation, and Intervenor's Cochingyans; and had in fact changed the suppliers without notice to intervenors;

2. That the receiver has demanded from the intervenors, thru their attorney-in-fact, Joseph Cochingyan, Jr., the payment to him of certain sums of money in consideration of his recognizing and enforcing intervenor's original contract with WARVET, said payment is to be kept secret or "under the table" for which no receipts will be issued, and not to be accountable to anyone;

3. That the receiver has also demanded from intervenors that in addition to the "under the table payments" to be made to him as stated 'above that intervenors pay plaintiff Lorenzo Camins P50,000.00 in cash without receipts;

4. That the receiver has imposed as an additional condition of his agreeing to implement-intervenors contract with WARVETS that said intervenors finance a suit against the Philippine Veterans Legion so that the Reparations Commission would have an excuse for giving preference to the allocation of WARVETS.

5. That the receiver has threatened the intervenors that unless they accede to his demands as mentioned above he would not carry out either of the contracts of intervenors with WARVETS; he would prevent the implementation by WARVETS and intervenors of the former's allocation; and thru his connections and influence with certain people in high places he would cause the investigation and prosecution of intervenors by the government;

6. That receiver has manifested to intervenors that once the intervenors agree to accept the conditions imposed by him he will execute with them two categories of contracts; one official which will be presented to the Court and the other secret and "under the table".

During the hearings held in connection with said motion, the movants presented evidence to substantiate their charges, and in a memorandum submitted on March 29, 1961 they further invited the attention of the respondent court to the decision of this Court promulgated on February 16, 1961 in the case entitled The Insurance Commissioners vs. Globe Assurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-13236, claiming that the receiver was found therein guilty of irregularities.

Before the receiver started presenting his evidence, the movants filed an urgent joint motion for the appointment of Clerk of Court Macario Ofilada as second receiver, claiming that the evidence theretofore presented had established prima facie the charges against the receiver and that the appointment of a second receiver was imperative for the protection of their rights in view of the fact that the incident concerning the removal of the former was bound to remain pending for a long time. On March 29, 1961 the respondent court denied the aforesaid motion mainly on the ground that the appointment of a second receiver would result in confusion in the management of the a affairs under receivership.

The petition now before us is, firstly, for the annulment of saidvrder upon the ground that the respondent court issued it with grave abuse of discretion and, secondly, for the appointment of a second receiver, petitioners stating in this connection that they are willing to file a bond in such amount as this Court may fix in connection with the appointment of a second receiver.

After a thorough consideration of the allegations in the verified petition and the contents of the document thereto ,attached and made a part thereof, we are of opinion that it is sufficiently meritorious. Therefore, is hereby given due course.

Without in any way prejudging the question involve in the motion for the removal of the receiver still pending in the respondent court, it is also the opinion of this Court that, for the proper protection of the rights of petition a second receiver should be appointed. Therefore, Maca Ofilada, Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila hereby appointed second receiver and may qualify as upon filing and approval of a bond equal in amount to the one filed by receiver Ramon Saura. However, inasmuch said Clerk of Court has considerable official duties perform, his appointment hereby made is provisional shall stand only until such time as this Court appointment another in his stead from a list of competent persons entities which the parties in this case are hereby require to submit to this Court within 10 days from notice here.

The appointment of a second receiver being made e parte, on motion of petitioners, the latter are hereby required to file a P5,000.00 bond in accordance with law.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Paredes, JJ., concur.