G.R. No. L-14890. September 30, 1963. CONRADO ALCANTARA, petitioner, vs. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, Presiding Judge, Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Davao and MARTIN T. BACARON, respondents.
FACTS:

Petitioner Conrado Alcantara sued respondent Martin T. Bacaron to foreclose a chattel mortgage on a tractor. The court, pursuant to a clause in the mortgage contract, appointed Alcantara as receiver. With court approval, Alcantara leased the tractor to Serapio Sablada. Upon the lease’s expiration, Sablada failed to return the tractor. The court, at Alcantara’s instance, found Sablada in contempt and fined him on October 6, 1958. The same order directed Alcantara to take steps to recover the tractor within fifteen days, warning he could be relieved as receiver if he failed.
On October 2, 1958, Bacaron petitioned for Alcantara’s removal, alleging neglect of duty for failing to retrieve the tractor. Alcantara opposed, detailing his efforts to compel Sablada’s compliance through the court and suggesting Sablada be held in continuous contempt or that he (Alcantara) be authorized to file a replevin action. Nonetheless, on December 10, 1958, the respondent judge issued an order relieving Alcantara and appointing Bacaron as the new receiver without requiring a bond, and authorizing Bacaron to receive P2,000 from Alcantara for repairs.

ISSUE

The issues are (1) the propriety of Alcantara’s removal as receiver, and (2) the legality of Bacaron’s appointment as receiver without bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court annulled the respondent judge’s order. On the first issue, the removal of Alcantara was improper. The lower court’s finding that Alcantara “failed to take steps” was erroneous. The record showed Alcantara had actively invoked judicial processes to compel Sablada’s compliance, including securing a contempt citation. His subsequent pleading proposed further judicial remedies—continuous contempt or a replevin suit—which the court overlooked. Alcantara was not negligent; he was attempting to work through the court’s own machinery to enforce its orders. His removal for failing to personally seize the property, without utilizing official help, was unjustified.
On the second issue, the appointment of Bacaron was legally flawed. First, the general rule is that neither party to a litigation should be appointed receiver without the other’s consent, as a receiver must be an impartial and disinterested person. Bacaron, as the defendant, had a personal interest directly adverse to the plaintiff, Alcantara, creating a conflict with the requisite duty of neutrality. Second, the Rules of Court mandate that a receiver must file a bond. The appointment of Bacaron without requiring such a bond was a clear violation of procedural rules. The combined effect was an erroneous discharge of the receivership at the defendant’s request, contravening established principles and procedure. The trial court thus committed grave abuse of discretion warranting corrective certiorari.