DIGEST/SUZEYNE KIM GARCIA/SERAFIN SANSON v. CONRADO BARRIOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, ALFREDO SANSON, EVA SANSON, ANTONIO YUSAY and ISABEL ARANETA

SERAFIN SANSON v. CONRADO BARRIOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, ALFREDO SANSON, EVA SANSON, ANTONIO YUSAY and ISABEL ARANETA

G.R. No. L-45086             July 20, 1936

 

FACTS:

In this case, there was a previous mandamus proceedings between the same parties (G. R. No. 44633 [62 Phil., 975]), entitled “Serafin Sanson vs. The Hon. Conrado Barrios, et al.” The Court granted the writ prayed for and directed the respondent judge to “consider and decide on its merits, in accordance with the evidence submitted by the parties, the new petition for the appointment of a receiver” filed by the plaintiff in civil case No. 9208 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, entitled “Serafin Sanson, plaintiff, vs. Isabel Araneta et al., defendants.”

 

In compliance with the order of the Court a hearing was held on the said petition and the same was afterwards denied by the respondent judge on the ground that the facts brought out by the evidence did not show the necessity of appointing a receiver. Now comes the petitioner with an application for a writ of mandamus alleging “that the evidence presented amply justifies the immediate appointment of a receiver; that the harvest season is in full swing and the appointment of a receiver is imperatively and absolutely necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner” who will, otherwise, sustain "irreparable damage"; that while “the respondent judge has discretion to determine the necessity for an appointment of a receiver,” nevertheless his refusal to appoint a receiver “is a gross abuse of discretion on his part and a great injustice to the herein petitioner”; and that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy, except the one prayed for, to correct this abuse of discretion.

 

ISSUE:

WON the petition for mandamus is proper.

 

RULING:

No, the petition for mandamus is improper.

 

1.    The allegations contained in the petition fail, in the Court’s opinion, to make a case for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. There is no showing that the petitioner has a clear legal right to the writ demanded or that it is the imperative duty of the respondent judge, clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law, to perform the act required, which in this case is the appointment of a receiver in civil case No. 9208.

2.    Mandamus is the proper remedy only in cases where an inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act with the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or unlawfully excludes a person from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which said person is entitled and from which he is precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

3.    It is well established that only specific legal rights are enforceable by mandamus, that the right sought to be enforced must be certain and clear, and the duties to be performed must be such as are clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law or by reason of official station. The record does not show that the right the petitioner seeks to enforce and the duty claimed to devolve upon the respondent judge are of such character.

4.    Under section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure the appointment of a receiver lies within the sound discretion of the court. Whenever a statute gives discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him upon his own appreciation of certain facts, such statute constitutes him the sole judge of the existence of those facts. Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of discretion of an inferior tribunal when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial. It is the proper remedy when the case presented is outside of the exercise of judicial discretion. Appeal, and not mandamus, is the proper mode of bringing up for review the correctness of the action of the court below in deciding which one of two applicants is entitled to be substituted for a deceased party to a suit.

5.    The appointment of a receiver during the pendency of the litigation is an interlocutory matter. Mandamus does not issue to review a ruling or interlocutory order made in the progress of a cause.

6.    It is true that if there is an arbitrary abuse of discretion the courts recognize that this is an exception to the general rule, and mandamus may issue if there is no other adequate remedy, though the result is that the court will be called upon to review the exercise of a discretionary power. Such review is allowed because the power of discretion is not all arbitrary and despotic one, to be exercised at the pleasure of the court, or from passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. But this abuse of discretion must be so gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law.