Facts:

The case involves Florencio Gordillo and Isidro Martinez as plaintiffs against Simplicio del Rosario, a judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and several other defendants including Eduardo Gutierrez Repide, Francisco Gutierrez Repide, Rodolfo Ortiz Arnau, and Angel Ortiz Arnau. The events leading to this litigation began with a limited partnership named "Gutierrez, Gordillo, Salgado y Martinez," which operated general merchandise businesses in Manila, specifically the "New York-Paris-Manila" and "St. Louis Dry Goods Store." The resident managers during the relevant period were Gordillo and Martinez. On January 14, 1919, a lawsuit was filed by partners Francisco Gutierrez Garcia, Rafael Gutierrez Rabago, Justo Salgado Bozano, and Eduardo Gutierrez Repide against Gordillo and Martinez, alleging that the latter had misappropriated substantial sums of money from the partnership for personal use, violating both the law and the partnership ag...

Facts:

1. Partnership Background:

   • A limited partnership named "Gutierrez, Gordillo, Salgado y Martinez" operated in Manila, managing two establishments: "New York-Paris-Manila" and "St. Louis Dry Goods Store."
   • The resident managers were Florencio Gordillo and Isidro Martinez. Other partners included Rafael Gutierrez Rabago, Justo Salgado Bozano, Francisco Gutierrez Garcia (residents of Spain), and Eduardo Gutierrez Repide (resident of Manila).

2. Allegations of Mismanagement:

   • On January 14, 1919, a lawsuit was filed by Francisco Gutierrez Garcia, Rafael Gutierrez Rabago, Justo Salgado Bozano, and Eduardo Gutierrez Repide against Gordillo and Martinez.
   • The plaintiffs accused the defendants of misappropriating large sums of money from the partnership and violating the partnership agreement. They sought partial rescission of the partnership, restoration of misappropriated funds, and indemnification for damages.

3. Expiration of Partnership Term:

   • The partnership term expired on February 1, 1919, and no extension was agreed upon.
   • Gordillo and Martinez insisted on conducting the liquidation themselves, citing paragraph 13 of the partnership agreement, which outlined the liquidation process.

4. Election of Liquidator:

   • A general meeting of partners was held on February 10, 1919, to elect a liquidator. Francisco Gutierrez Repide was chosen as liquidator by a majority vote.
   • Gordillo and Martinez refused to surrender the partnership properties to the liquidator, prompting the plaintiffs to file a supplemental complaint seeking an injunction to compel the defendants to yield possession.

5. Injunction Issued:

   • On February 14, 1919, Judge Simplicio del Rosario issued an ex parte injunction, ordering Gordillo and Martinez to cease obstructing the liquidator and to surrender the partnership properties.
   • The defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, but the motion was denied.

6. Petition for Certiorari:

   • On February 26, 1919, Gordillo and Martinez filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the injunction. They argued that the injunction was irregular, exceeded the court's jurisdiction, and constituted an abuse of discretion.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance:

   • The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to issue the injunction as an auxiliary remedy to preserve the partnership assets pending the resolution of the main case. The injunction was incidental to the relief sought in the complaint, which included rescission of the partnership and an accounting of misappropriated funds.

2. Nature of the Injunction:

   • The injunction was not mandatory in the sense of transferring ownership but was intended to ensure the proper liquidation of the partnership. It was necessary to prevent further mismanagement by the defendants, who were accused of misappropriating partnership funds.

3. Proper Parties:

   • The liquidator, Francisco Gutierrez Repide, was a proper party respondent because he had a direct interest in sustaining the injunction. The nonresident partners were not necessary parties since their interests were not directly affected by the injunction.

4. Liquidation Process:

   • The election of a liquidator under Article 229 of the Code of Commerce was valid and supplemental to the partnership agreement. The defendants, as managers accused of misconduct, were unfit to continue managing or liquidating the partnership.

5. Preservation of Status Quo:

   • The injunction served to preserve the status quo by preventing further harm to the partnership assets. The Court emphasized that the injunctive power should not be used to transfer possession of property in dispute over ownership but was appropriate in this case to protect the interests of the partnership.