Case Digest (G.R. No. 173138)
Facts:
The case of Serafin Sanson vs. Conrado Barkios et al. (G.R. No. L-45086) was decided on July 20, 1936. The petitioner, Serafin Sanson, sought a writ of mandamus against Conrado Barkios, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, along with other respondents Alfredo Sanson, Eva Sanson, Antonio Yusay, and Isabel Araneta. In earlier mandamus proceedings (G.R. No. 44633), this Court had previously directed the respondent judge to consider and decide on the merits a petition for the appointment of a receiver filed in the civil case No. 9208, involving Serafin Sanson as the plaintiff and Isabel Araneta et al. as defendants. Following the Court's directive, a hearing was conducted on the petition for a receiver. However, the judge denied the petition, stating that the evidence did not warrant the necessity for appointing a receiver. In response, Serafin Sanson filed another mandamus application claiming that the evidence justified the urgent appointment of a receiver due to thCase Digest (G.R. No. 173138)
Facts:
In a previous mandamus proceeding, the petitioner Serafin Sanson sought to compel the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to rule on a petition for the appointment of a receiver in civil case No. 9208, involving disputes with Isabel Araneta and others. Following the directing order of this court, a hearing was held, and the respondent judge ultimately denied the petition on the ground that the evidence did not establish the necessity to appoint a receiver. The petitioner then filed a new application for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the immediate appointment of a receiver was imperative—given the full swing of the harvest season—to protect his interests against irreparable damage. He contended that, although the respondent judge possessed discretion regarding the appointment, his refusal constituted a gross abuse of that discretion and that no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy was available.Issues:
- Whether the petitioner’s right to the appointment of a receiver was clearly established such that the respondent judge’s duty to act was both clear and peremptory.
- Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a judge to exercise his discretion in appointing a receiver in a pending civil case.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)