GR L 11986; (August, 1916) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-11986; August 25, 1916
MANUEL ORIA Y GONZALEZ, petitioner, vs. RICHARD CAMPBELL, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, respondents.

FACTS:
On July 10, 1910, Gutierrez Hermanos obtained a writ of attachment against the property of Oria Hermanos in a civil case. After the sheriff levied the attachment, the parties agreed to place the attached property in the possession of Manuel Oria y Gonzalez as a receiver, instead of leaving it with the sheriff. Oria y Gonzalez executed a document accepting his appointment as receiver and inventorying the property, except for one item already held by another receiver.

On April 12, 1916, Gutierrez Hermanos filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by Judge Richard Campbell, requiring Oria y Gonzalez to render an accounting of the property and its income during his receivership. Oria y Gonzalez opposed the motion, but the court granted it and ordered him to account.

Oria y Gonzalez then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the lower court’s order. He argued that the Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction in issuing the order. The respondents admitted the material facts, and the case was submitted for resolution as if on demurrer.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in ordering Manuel Oria y Gonzalez to render an accounting as receiver, thereby justifying the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

The Court held that certiorari lies only when a court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, not merely for errors of judgment or incorrect findings of fact. Courts of First Instance have inherent jurisdiction to appoint receivers, supervise them, and require them to account. The determination of whether Oria y Gonzalez was a receiver and whether he should account fell within the court’s jurisdiction. Even if the court erred in its conclusion, such error did not amount to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Since the lower court acted within its authority, certiorari was improper. The petition was dismissed on the merits, with costs against the petitioner.

Torres, Johnson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.