G.R. No. L-3430

FACTS:
Francisco T. Figueras, a former general partner of the limited partnership “Carman & Co.,” filed an action against Rocha & Co. (the successor partnership) for the recovery of a sum of money representing his claimed share in the partnership capital and funds. The complaint was essentially a money claim arising from his withdrawal from the partnership. It contained no allegation that the partnership was dissolved by his withdrawal, nor that he retained any ownership interest or lien over the partnership’s specific physical assets (e.g., lorchas, launches). Notwithstanding this, Figueras applied for and obtained from the Court of First Instance of Manila an order appointing a receiver over all properties of Rocha & Co. Rocha & Co. then filed this original action for certiorari, arguing that the lower court acted without jurisdiction in appointing a receiver.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in appointing a receiver over the properties of Rocha & Co. in an action purely for the recovery of a sum of money.

RULING:
Yes, the appointment of the receiver was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court annulled the order and all subsequent proceedings.

The Court held that the case did not fall under any of the grounds for the appointment of a receiver under Section 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Specifically:
1. The partnership was not a corporation under paragraph (1).
2. Figueras failed to show, as required by paragraph (2), that he had “an interest in the property or fund” which was the subject of the action and that such property was in danger of being lost. His complaint alleged only a money claim as a general creditor, not an ownership interest or lien on specific partnership assets.
3. The action was not for foreclosure under paragraph (3).
4. Paragraph (4) on “other cases” was also inapplicable as the complaint’s allegations did not justify the appointment as the most feasible means of preserving property involved in the litigation.

Since the complaint disclosed no legal basis for a receivership, the lower court’s order was issued without jurisdiction. Certiorari was the proper remedy to correct this jurisdictional error, as an appeal from the interlocutory order would not be adequate. The subsequent amendment to the complaint, made after the certiorari proceedings began, could not validate the void order.