Alcantara vs Abbas
GR No. L-14890
PLAINTIFF: Conrado Alcantara
DEFENDANT: Hon. Abbas, Martin Bacaron
DATE: September 30, 1963
PONENTE: J. Bengzon
TOPIC: Rule 59 Receivership
Facts:
Petitioner Alcantara seeks to annul the order of the respondent Judge removing him as receiver and appointing Martin T. Bacaron in
his place
Alcantara sued Bacaron partly to foreclose chattel mortgage executed by the latter on a pillar contractor with its
accessories
CFI Davo designated Alcantara as receiver of the tractor – as he is qualified as such
With courts approval, Alcantara – leased the machine to Serapio Sablada
o After the lease, Seblada failed to return the machine
o Declared Sablada in contempt
Bacaron alleged that Alcantara had neglected his duties as receiver because he was not able to get the tractor
o Filed a petition to relieve such receiver and to appoint as the receiver instead – GRANTED
Alcantara opposed with the following manifestation
o He exerted all efforts to secure possession of the tractor, but it seems that the Honorable Court is at mercy of
Sablada
o Sablada is the one liable as he is in contempt
o it most respectfully prayed that the plaintiff-receiver be immediately authorized to file a case of replevin with
damages against the person of Serapio Sablada, holding his surety bond liable therefor, if proper, as most legal
and expedient procedure to retake the tractor in question
o MR – DENIED
o Filed a request for preliminary injunction – GRANTED issued to restrain enforcement of the courts judgment
Issue: W/N appointment of Bacaron as receiver is proper, NO
Ruling:
It is not clear what steps the court had in mind when it declared that "plaintiff-receiver failed to take steps to take possession of the
tractor leased to Sablada". It could have meant that Alcantara failed to take the tractor directly from the hands of Sablada from the
place where it was, without resorting to official help. If the court meant — as it must have meant — that Alcantara failed to exhaust
judicial remedies to compel Sablada to comply with the order to place the tractor at the "junction" previously mentioned, then it fell
into error, because Alcantara had in effect, suggested that Sablada be held in "continuous contempt" (Annex J) i.e., imprisoned
until he placed the tractor at the "junction"; and the court instead of acting accordingly under Rule 64, sec. 74 held Alcantara to be
negligent, and removed him.
In this connection, it should be observed that in his aforesaid pleading of November 26, 1958, Alcantara even asked for permission
to sue Sablada for replevin.
If it was error to remove Alcantara, a clearer error occurred when Bacaron — the defendant — was appointed, as receiver without
bond, over the objection of Alcantara — the plaintiff. The general rule is that neither to a litigation should be appointed receiver
without the other's consent because "a receiver ought to be an indifferent person between the parties" and "should be impartial and
disinterested". Note that Bacaron was the defendant, and his personal interest would conflict with his duties to the court and the
plaintiff. Furthermore, under the Rules of Court, the receiver must file a bond; and yet Bacaron was exempted from such obligation.
The effect of the whole proceeding was to discharge the receiver ship at the request of the defendant, without so much a bond —
contrary to sec. 4, Rule 61, of the Rules of Court.
Conclusion. — Such mistakes causing prejudice to petitioner, call for interference with that discretion which usually vests in trial
courts in the matter of receivership Consequently, the order of December 10, 1958, should be, and is hereby annulled. Costs
against respondent Bacaron. So ordered.
