Marquez v. Revilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Gregorio Marquez and Maria Jurado sought a writ of certiorari to nullify the appointment of a receiver in a pending case for the dissolution of a partnership. The appointment was based on allegations in the complaint that a "sad and unfortunate disagreement and lack of harmony" existed between the parties regarding the management of "enormous estates," leading to potential "incalculable loss and damage" unless the co-ownership was terminated and a receiver appointed to manage the property pending litigation. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Tayabas, after hearing, appointed a receiver based on the aforementioned allegations in the complaint. The Petition: Petitioners contended that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to warrant the appointment of a receiver, arguing that there was no showing of mismanagement or danger to the property. They also questioned the validity of the verification of the complaint, which was made only upon "information and belief," and asserted that the receivership would cause them "irreparable damage." Consequently, they prayed for the certification of the record and the declaration of the appointment as illegal, with restoration of the property to them.
Issue(s)
Whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to justify the appointment of a receiver. Whether the verification of the complaint upon "information and belief" rendered the appointment of a receiver illegal. Whether the writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to correct alleged errors in the appointment of a receiver.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari and dismissed the proceeding. The Court held that the allegations, while potentially based on information and belief, were sufficient under the law for the appointment of a receiver after notice and hearing, as it appeared to be the most convenient means of preserving and administering the property. The alleged irregularities did not go to the jurisdiction of the court below, and thus, certiorari was not the proper remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to justify the appointment of a receiver. It cited subsection 4 of section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for the appointment of a receiver "whatever . . . it shall be made to appear to the court that the appointment of a receiver is the most convenient and feasible means of preserving and administering the property which is the subject of litigation during the pendency of the action." The Court clarified that a showing of past mismanagement by the petitioners was not essential for such an appointment. The existence of "sad and unfortunate disagreement and lack of harmony" and the potential for "incalculable loss and damage" were deemed sufficient grounds to establish the necessity of a receiver for property preservation. On Issue 2: The Court held that the verification of the complaint upon "information and belief" did not affect the jurisdiction of the court. While such verification might be of importance if the receiver had been appointed ex parte, in this case, the appointment was made "upon notice and hearing." The Court reasoned that during a hearing, the necessity for positive verification is "less imperative" because the parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence, and the court can make a determination based on the totality of what is presented, including the allegations made on information and belief. On Issue 3: The Court firmly reiterated that the writ of certiorari is not a writ of error and cannot be used to correct mistakes in law or fact committed by an inferior tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction. The petitioners' contentions regarding the sufficiency of the allegations and the verification of the complaint were considered as mere alleged errors of law or fact, not jurisdictional defects. The Court cited numerous previous decisions establishing this principle, emphasizing that certiorari is strictly limited to reviewing whether the lower court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The alleged irregularities did not rise to the level of jurisdictional infirmities, thus precluding the use of certiorari.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that lies only when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy for correcting errors of law or fact committed by the lower court within its lawful jurisdiction, nor is it a substitute for an appeal. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint for the appointment of a receiver, even if verified only on information and belief, may be sufficient if the appointment is made after notice and hearing and is deemed the most convenient means of preserving the property in litigation.