Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Teal Motor Co. Vs CFI
Teal Motor Co. Vs CFI
Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6
COMPANY,
INCORPORATED
C.
MOTOR
THEO.
CO.,
G.
Petitioners pray:
That an order be issued to the said Court of First
Instance of Manila, to certify to this Honorable Supreme
Court, at the time and place to be specified by this
court, the transcript of the record and proceedings in the
said case entitled E. M. Bachrach, plaintiff, vs. E. H. Teal
and Teal Motor Co., Inc., defendants, No. 32777 of the
said Court of First Instance of Manila, that the same may
be reviewed by this court; and requiring the said
defendants herein in the meantime, to desist from
further proceedings in the matter to be reviewed; that,
on final hearing, judgment be rendered setting aside and
annulling the said order dated December 19, 1927
appointing a receiver in said case No. 32777; and for
such further relief as may deem equitable and for the
costs of this action.
It will thus been that the petitioners not only challenge
the legal right of the lower court to appoint a receiver,
but they also claim and assert that the powers and
duties of the receiver, as defined in his order of
appointment, are "illegal improper and excessive."
P.
P4,500
Inc., and notified the said receiver not to pay to the said
Haskins & Sells the said sum of four thousand five
hundred pesos (P4,500) on account of said claim.
INC.
DAVIS
JOHNS, J.:
It will be noted that the original suit in which the
receiver was appointed was not brought to dissolve the
corporation or to terminate its existence. It is there
specifically alleged that to obtain an application of the
property and interests of the defendant corporation to
and upon the claims of the plaintiff and other creditors,
and to prevent the depreciation of its property "and the
loss and destruction of the value thereof as a going
concern" it is necessary that a receiver be appointed to
sell its property and business, or so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy the debts and claims
against the same, and that the appointment of a
receiver "for the protection of the value of said property
and of the interests of all concerned, is an imperative
necessity." In other words, the plaintiff prays for the
appointment of a receiver pendente lite to protect and
preserve the assets of the corporation pending the
litigation, and in the end to have them applied to the
satisfaction of plaintiff's claim and those of other
creditors, and it was upon such grounds and for such
purposes, that the plaintiff asked the lower court to
appoint a receiver.
High on Receivers is recognized as standard authority in
the United States, in particular, and in the fourth edition,
on page 12, paragraph 7, author says:
Discretionary character of the jurisdiction;
discretion defined. The appointment of a
receiver pendente lite, like the granting of an
interlocutory injunction, is to a considerable
extent a matter resting in the discretion of the
court to which the application is made, to be
governed by a consideration of the entire
circumstances of the case. And since the
appointment of a receiver is thus a discretionary
measure, the action of the lower court in
appointing or denying a receiver pendente
lite will not be disturbed upon appeals unless
Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6
Separate Opinions
MALCOLM, J., concurring:
I agree that the writ of certiorari should not be granted,
and only desire to point out that as an appeal has been
taken from the allowance of the Haskins & Sells claim,
that matter is here removed from the field of discussion.