G.R. No. 18402; March 22, 1922
CALIXTO BERBARI, petitioner, vs. Honorable CARLOS A. IMPERIAL, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and ALFREDO CHICOTE, respondents.

FACTS

Alfredo Chicote filed a complaint against Calixto Berbari in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that in December 1918 he delivered P37,500 to Berbari with instructions to use it to purchase stock in the Tayabas Oil Company for Chicote’s account. Chicote claimed Berbari did not use the money for its intended purpose, retained it, diverted it, and refused to return it. Chicote prayed for the appointment of a receiver to prevent the loss or disappearance of the money, restitution, an accounting, and damages. Berbari admitted receiving the money but claimed he retained it as a partial set-off against a larger amount Chicote owed him. He also alleged the money had been transmitted to Beyrouth, Syria, and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts, depriving the court of power to appoint a receiver. The lower court appointed a receiver for the P37,500. Berbari petitioned for certiorari, arguing Chicote had no sufficient interest for a receivership and that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing a receiver for funds outside its territorial jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction in appointing a receiver for funds alleged to be outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

RULING

No. The petition for certiorari is denied. The lower court had jurisdiction to appoint the receiver. Under Section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a receiver may be appointed where the applicant has an interest in the property or fund subject of the action, and the property is in danger of being lost, removed, or materially injured. The funds were alleged to be trust funds, and the appointment was limited to that specific fund, not all of the defendant’s property. The fact that the money may have been invested or made productive does not alter its character as a trust fund. Furthermore, the fact that the money may be outside the territorial jurisdiction does not deprive the court of the power to appoint a receiver. The court, through its jurisdiction over the parties, can compel them to take steps to place the receiver in possession, and the receiver may, with the aid of foreign courts, obtain control of the funds. Certiorari only goes to jurisdiction and will not lie to correct mere errors of judgment. The receivership order, even if potentially ineffective, was within the court’s jurisdictional power.