GR 1673; (April, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1673 : April 8, 1904
Case Title: PETRONILA ENCARNACION, petitioner, vs. B. S. AMBLER, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner Petronila Encarnacion instituted an action for recovery of possession of real estate before the Justice of the Peace of Manila. Before the trial commenced, respondent Judge B. S. Ambler of the Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order in a separate case, Sergia Reyes vs. Tan-Tonco, prohibiting the justice of the peace from proceeding with Encarnacion’s suit and citing her to show cause why she should not be punished for contempt. This order was issued upon the application of a receiver appointed in the Reyes case. Encarnacion was not a party to the Reyes case. She filed this original suit for prohibition, alleging that the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction in appointing the receiver and in issuing the order that interfered with her independent action.
ISSUE:
Whether the writ of prohibition should be issued to prohibit the respondent Judge from taking further action in Sergia Reyes vs. Tan-Tonco that interferes with the petitioner’s prosecution of her suit before the justice of the peace.
RULING:
Yes, the writ of prohibition is granted. The Supreme Court, adhering to its prior ruling in Eugenio Bonaplata vs. Ambler, held that the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction in appointing a receiver in the case of Sergia Reyes vs. Tan-Tonco. The appointment was not authorized under Section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as no property of the defendant was the subject of litigation in that case, and it effectively constituted an unauthorized bankruptcy proceeding. Consequently, the order issued by the respondent Judge, based on that invalid receivership and interfering with the petitioner’s separate action before the justice of the peace, was also issued without jurisdiction. The respondent Judge is prohibited from making further orders in Sergia Reyes vs. Tan-Tonco that would interfere with the petitioner’s prosecution of her suit before the justice of the peace or with the enforcement of her claim. Costs are adjudged against the respondent.