Muñoz v. Locsin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Andres Muñoz was involved in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding instituted by respondents Juliana M. Vda. de Muñoz and Maria Muñoz. A judgment by default was entered, and upon failure to satisfy the money judgment, the mortgaged parcels of land were sold at public auction. Respondent Juliana M. Vda. de Muñoz purchased one undivided half of the property. Procedural History: The respondent judge approved the sale over petitioner's objection, who appeared for the first time to contest its validity. Petitioner appealed this order, which appeal is still pending. Subsequently, respondent Juliana M. Vda. de Muñoz filed a petition for the appointment of a receiver, which petitioner also objected to. The respondent judge appointed a commissioner to receive evidence, and after the commissioner's report and hearing the parties, the judge issued the challenged order appointing a receiver. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside the order appointing a receiver.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in appointing a receiver based partly on a commissioner's report without a separate hearing. Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy for alleged irregularities in the appointment of a receiver that do not go to the jurisdiction of the appointing court.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied, and the preliminary injunction issued is dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in appointing a receiver. Section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly provides for the appointment of a receiver in a mortgage foreclosure action when the property is in danger of being wasted or materially injured, and its value is likely insufficient to cover the mortgage debt. The respondent judge, after hearing the parties (which included considering the commissioner's report), found these statutory conditions to be present. The mere fact that this finding was based partly on the commissioner's report, even without a specific separate hearing on the report itself, does not affect the lower court's jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. The law, under Section 177 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even authorizes such an appointment upon an ex parte application, implying that a full adversarial hearing on every piece of evidence is not strictly jurisdictional. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court affirmed that certiorari will not lie in this case. A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when a tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Citing the precedent set in Marquez and Jurado vs. Revilla, the Court reiterated that alleged irregularities in the appointment of a receiver that do not go to the jurisdiction of the appointing court are not grounds for a writ of certiorari. The alleged procedural flaw, such as the manner in which evidence was considered through a commissioner's report, is considered an error of judgment or procedure, not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, such an irregularity, while perhaps reviewable on appeal, does not warrant the extraordinary intervention of certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari will not lie to question the appointment of a receiver if the alleged irregularities do not go to the jurisdiction of the appointing court, especially when the court has heard the parties and found that the property is in danger of being wasted and its value is insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt.