Berbari v. Imperial

G.R. No. 18402 · 1922-03-22 · J. OSTRAND, J.: · Primary: Remedial; Secondary: Commercial
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Alfredo Chicote filed a complaint against Calixto Berbari, alleging that Berbari received P37,500 in December 1918 to purchase stock for Chicote's account in the Tayabas Oil Company. Berbari allegedly did not use the money for its intended purpose, retained it, and refused to return it. Chicote sought the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the funds, restitution of the money, an accounting of benefits and interest, and damages. Procedural History: Berbari admitted receiving the sum but claimed it was a partial set-off against a larger amount due to him. He argued the money was transmitted to Beyrouth, Syria, thus outside Philippine court jurisdiction, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. Despite this opposition, the Court of First Instance of Manila appointed a receiver on April 21, 1921, to take charge of the P37,500. The Petition: Berbari filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that Chicote lacked the interest to warrant a receiver and that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing a receiver for funds outside its territorial jurisdiction. He sought to have the order appointing the receiver vacated.

Issue(s)

Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver for funds alleged to be outside its territorial jurisdiction. Whether Alfredo Chicote had sufficient interest in the funds to warrant the appointment of a receiver.

Ruling

The petition is denied. The order appointing a receiver is upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

On the issue of jurisdiction to appoint a receiver for funds outside territorial jurisdiction: The Court held that the lower court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver in this case. Section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for the appointment of a receiver when a party making the application has an interest in the property or fund, and it is shown that the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured. While it is clear that the court cannot appoint a receiver for all of the defendant's property outside its jurisdiction, this case concerns alleged trust funds claimed by the plaintiff, which must be presumed to remain intact and separate. The fact that the defendant may have made the fund productive through investment does not alter the case, as it is not essential that the identical currency be in his hands. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the location of the money outside the territorial jurisdiction should not deprive the court of the power to appoint a receiver for funds whose ownership or possession is in litigation before it. A receiver appointed in the Philippines might, with the aid of foreign courts, obtain possession or control of the fund. The court also has jurisdiction over the parties to compel them to place the receiver in possession. While some state courts hold that jurisdiction of the res is essential, the great weight of authority supports the view that jurisdiction over the parties is sufficient to empower the court to appoint a receiver for property in litigation, even if that property is temporarily outside the territorial limits. On the issue of Chicote's interest in the funds: The Court implicitly affirmed Chicote's interest by upholding the appointment of the receiver. The complaint alleged that Chicote delivered the money to Berbari for a specific purpose, and Berbari failed to use it as instructed and retained it. This established Chicote's claim of ownership over the funds, which were alleged to be trust funds. The court found that the appointment of a receiver was the most convenient and feasible means of preserving and administering the property during the pendency of the action, as the funds were in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured.

Main Doctrine

A court may appoint a receiver for funds, even if currently outside its territorial jurisdiction, provided it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the litigation, and the funds are in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →