Berberabe v. Nicolas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a ten-year lease agreement entered into on December 31, 1968, between Pablo M. Berberabe (petitioner) and the Municipality of Naujan for the Naujan Butas Fishery. The annual rental was set at P202,500.00, payable quarterly. Berberabe initiated a complaint on June 18, 1973, seeking rescission of the lease and damages due to an alleged violation by the lessor. Subsequently, on November 8, 1973, the Municipality of Naujan filed its own complaint against Berberabe for rescission and foreclosure of mortgage, citing Berberabe's failure to pay two quarterly rentals. Both cases remained pending. 2. Procedural History: Following Berberabe's complaint, the respondent court, upon the Municipality's petition, appointed receivers for the Butas Fishery on August 24, 1973. Berberabe objected to this receivership and filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus (G.R. No. L-38257) with the Supreme Court to annul the receivership order and regain possession. On March 11, 1974, the Supreme Court dismissed this petition upon agreement of the parties, allowing for the dissolution of the receivership upon Berberabe's delivery of the fishery to the municipality. However, on May 31, 1974, the respondent court ordered the delivery of all funds held by the receivers and deposited in the bank to the Provincial Treasurer and directed the receivers to deliver the fishery and its properties to the Municipality of Naujan. 3. The Petition: Berberabe filed the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus, arguing that the respondent court's May 31, 1974 orders exceeded its jurisdiction and contravened the Supreme Court's March 11, 1974 resolution. He sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the spending of funds deposited with the Provincial Treasurer and in the hands of a receiver, and requested the turnover of these funds to him. Berberabe also sought reimbursement for improvements, settlement of receivership accounts, annulment of the order delivering the fishery to the municipality, and its prior turnover to him, among other damages and costs. The Supreme Court found that the demands were not based on judgments and that mandamus was not the proper remedy, further noting that the prior resolution did not mandate the fishery's delivery to Berberabe as a precondition for dissolution of the receivership's dissolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of May 31, 1974, which allegedly contravened this Court's Resolution of March 11, 1974. Whether certiorari and mandamus are the proper remedies for the reliefs sought by the petitioner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the orders of May 31, 1974, were not in contravention of the Court's Resolution of March 11, 1974, and that the reliefs sought by the petitioner were not based on judgments for payment of money that could be enforced by mandamus, but rather constituted money claims that required a hearing on the merits. The Court also found no clear case of grave abuse of discretion justifying its intervention at that stage.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the orders of May 31, 1974, were not in contravention of its Resolution dated March 11, 1974. The Court clarified that its previous resolution dismissed the petition upon agreement of the parties, without prejudice to the petitioner limiting his relief to damages and to the immediate dissolution of the receivership upon delivery of the fishery to the respondent municipality. The Court emphasized that the previous resolution did not order the dissolution of the receivership nor did it mandate the delivery of the fishery to the petitioner as a precondition for dissolution. Therefore, the subsequent orders of the respondent court directing the delivery of the fishery to the municipality and the proceeds to the Provincial Treasurer were not contrary to the prior Supreme Court resolution. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that mandamus was not the proper remedy for the petitioner's demands for the delivery of certain sums of money. The Court reasoned that these demands were not based on judgments for the payment of money, the execution of which could be enforced by mandamus. Instead, they constituted mere money claims that had yet to be determined after a hearing and the presentation of evidence by the parties. Consequently, the petitioner should have pursued these claims in the lower court proceedings. The Court also noted that the orders complained of were interlocutory in nature, and as a general rule, it does not entertain petitions for certiorari questioning such orders unless grave abuse of discretion is patently committed, which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a proper remedy to assail interlocutory orders issued by a lower court, unless there is a clear and patent showing of grave abuse of discretion or that the court acted capriciously and whimsically. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed its policy of disfavoring the appointment of court officials and employees as receivers, emphasizing the need for impartiality and the avoidance of potential conflicts of interest in such appointments.