Go Chi Gun v. Go Cho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellants, Go Chi Gun, et al., sought a portion of the properties of the deceased Go Checo, claiming to be his heirs. They requested the appointment of a receiver for certain properties of the deceased. Procedural History: The appointment of a receiver was initially opposed by the defendants. The matter reached the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 3937), which refused to interfere with the lower court's discretion. Subsequently, trial on the merits proceeded, where plaintiffs sought to annul a project of partition. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but this judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal (G.R. No. L-5208), with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants. The Appeal: Upon remand, the defendants, having won, presented a bill of costs including the receiver's bond premium and compensation. The Clerk of Court approved these items. On appeal to the judge, the bond premium was disallowed, but the receiver's compensation was ordered to be partly paid by the defendants (P1,000.00) and partly by the plaintiffs (P4,000.00). Only the plaintiffs appealed this apportionment of the receiver's compensation.
Issue(s)
Whether the compensation of a receiver, when the receivership was properly established, should be charged against the funds under receivership or against the party who requested its appointment. Whether the lower court erred in apportioning the receiver's compensation between the plaintiffs-appellants and the defendants-appellees, despite the Supreme Court having ruled with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, holding that the apportionment of the receiver's compensation was a valid exercise of judicial discretion. The dispositive portion states: "WHEREFORE, the order in question is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants."
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the law in the Philippines, specifically Section 8 of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court, grants the court the power to grant reasonable compensation to a receiver, which is to be "taxed as costs against the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice requires." While American decisions suggest payment from receivership funds when the receivership is proper, these cannot prevail over the clear provisions of the Philippine Rules of Court. Therefore, the compensation is not automatically charged against the funds under receivership but is subject to the court's discretion. On Issue 2: The Court found no reason to disapprove the lower court's exercise of discretion in apportioning the receiver's compensation. Although the Supreme Court had previously ruled with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants, the lower court, in its opinion, found that the receivership had also been of some utility to the defendants by preventing the foreclosure of some properties. Based on this assessment of utility and the principle that apportionment is permissible "as justice requires," the lower court's decision to charge P1,000.00 to the defendants and P4,000.00 to the plaintiffs was upheld.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's discretion in apportioning the receiver's compensation between the parties, even though the plaintiffs-appellants were the defeated party. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Court grant courts the power to tax receiver's compensation as costs against the defeated party or to apportion it as justice requires, and found no reason to disapprove the lower court's exercise of discretion in this instance.