Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14941)
Facts:
Natalio Ventosa v. Hon. Wenceslao Fernan, et al., G.R. No. L-14941, January 31, 1964, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paredes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Natalio Ventosa was lessee under a lease effected by resolution of the stockholders of La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc. on January 6, 1958; the formal lease was executed January 31, 1958, ratified before a notary and approved by the corporation’s board, and the Public Service Commission initially approved the contract on May 2, 1958. Ventosa alleged he took possession and operated the plant beginning February 4, 1958.
On September 24, 1958, C. N. Hodges and Ricardo Gurrea filed Civil Case No. 4994 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo against Manuel Lezama and Paquita B. Lezama, seeking, among other reliefs, the appointment of a receiver for the corporation’s properties; Jose S. Dineros was appointed receiver and took possession of the ice-plant. Ventosa claimed Benjamin Borja was serving as manager by appointment of Ventosa. Ventosa wrote to Receiver Dineros on October 1 and October 3, 1958, refusing to deliver possession because of his asserted leasehold rights.
Ventosa moved to intervene and filed a complaint in intervention in CFI Case No. 4994; the intervention was admitted October 13, 1958. On October 8, 1958, he moved the CFI for an order restraining Receiver Dineros from interfering with his possession and management of the plant. The plaintiffs in the CFI action (Hodges and Gurrea) contested the lease as simulated and otherwise invalid; they also pleaded that the Public Service Commission had issued an order of January 6, 1959 affecting the lease’s status (an order which was later, according to Ventosa, reconsidered by the Commission on February 18, 1959).
On November 22, 1958, the respondent CFI judge denied Ventosa’s motion for a restraining order on the ground that the validity of the lease was being questioned and had to be first determined in the receivership proceedings; on December 23, 1958, the judge denied Ventosa’s motion for reconsideration. Ventosa filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court on January 22, 1959, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the CFI’s orders; this Court issued a preliminary mandatory injunction pending resolution.
Respondents filed motions and answers before the Supreme Court contesting Ventosa’s allegations, asserting majority stockholder status, alleging simulation of the lease, and asserting that the lease had expired. The Supreme Court appointed a commissioner and, pursuant to its April 8, 1959 resolution, received evidence. The record showed that the receiver took possession on the afternoon of September 27, 1958, that Borja did not identify himself to the receiver as Ventosa’s manager at that time, and that municipal records and business licenses were in the corporation’s, not Ventosa’s, name.
The Supreme Court framed th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent CFI judge commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner Ventosa’s motion to restrain the receiver and his motion for reconsideration?
- Could petitioner Ventosa, as an intervenor claiming a leasehold interest, compel the receiver to deliver possession of the corporate property prior to adjudication of his claim in t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)