G.R. No. 1278 : August 1, 1903
EUGENIO BONAPLATA, petitioner, vs. BYRON S. AMBLER, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and J. MCMICKING, clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner Eugenio Bonaplata obtained a final and executory judgment against Fulgencio Tan Tonco for a sum of money on January 13, 1903. Despite repeated demands, the respondent Judge and Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Manila refused to issue a writ of execution to enforce said judgment. The refusal was based on an order issued in a separate case, Sergia Reyes v. Fulgencio Tan Tonco, wherein a receiver was appointed over Tan Tonco’s assets on December 19, 1902. In that case, Reyes, a creditor for a smaller amount, alleged Tan Tonco’s insolvency and mismanagement of his substantial business assets and successfully prayed for the appointment of a receiver to preserve the property for the benefit of creditors. The court in that case also issued an injunction restraining Tan Tonco from interfering with the property and enjoined the Clerk from issuing executions against him.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent Judge and Clerk can lawfully refuse to issue a writ of execution on Bonaplata’s final and executory judgment against Tan Tonco by virtue of a receivership and injunction order issued in a separate action to which Bonaplata was not a party.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus and ordered the issuance of the writ of execution. The Court held that the appointment of a receiver in the Reyes case was improper and could not prejudice Bonaplata’s right to enforce his judgment. The general rule is that a receiver is an equitable remedy, and legal remedies (like execution) must first be exhausted before such equitable relief is granted. The Reyes case, involving a claim of only $1,500 against assets valued at $200,000, did not present the special circumstances (e.g., non-residence of the debtor, imminent danger of loss) justifying a receiver prior to judgment and execution. The allegations of mismanagement were insufficient cause to place all of the debtor’s property under receivership for a small debt. Furthermore, the proceeding effectively functioned as a bankruptcy proceeding, which was expressly forbidden until a bankruptcy law was enacted for the Islands. Since Bonaplata was not a party to the Reyes case, he was not bound by the order appointing a receiver or the injunction. Therefore, he was entitled to have an execution issued on his final judgment.