G.R. No. L-6666; May 12, 1954
GORGONIO PANDES, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, JOSE AZCONA, Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental, and UY TIONG OH, respondents.

FACTS

On December 9, 1952, respondent Uy Tiong Oh filed a money claim (Civil Case No. 2562) against petitioner Gorgonio Pandes in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. The court issued a writ of preliminary attachment against Pandes’s properties. The provincial sheriff then issued a “Notice of Garnishment” upon Pandes’s alleged right, interest, and participation in a partnership between Uy Tiong Oh and Ester Pandes (petitioner’s wife) concerning the Eden Theater. Pandes filed an answer to the garnishment, stating this interest was involved in another case (Civil Case No. 2371, Uy King Poe vs. Ester Pandes and Gorgonio Pandes), but took no further court action on this answer. Uy Tiong Oh obtained a final judgment in Case No. 2562. On April 11, 1953, the court, presided by respondent Judge Jose Teodoro, Sr., ordered execution and the sale at public auction of Pandes’s rights in the partnership. The sheriff sold these rights to Uy Tiong Oh. Prior to the sale, Pandes moved for reconsideration, arguing the partnership was under receivership (appointed in Civil Case No. 2371) and thus its assets were in custodia legis and not subject to garnishment. The motion was denied. Pandes then filed this certiorari proceeding.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge exceeded his authority or committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of April 11, 1953, directing the sale on execution of Pandes’s right, interest, and participation in the partnership, despite the partnership being under receivership.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The respondent Judge did not exceed his authority or commit grave abuse of discretion.
1. The exemption of properties under receivership from attachment or execution is not absolute. Such properties may be levied upon “except by leave of the Court appointing the receiver.” The rule protects the receiver’s custody and possession from interference without the appointing court’s consent. It has been held that property in a receiver’s custody can be levied upon and sold under execution, provided the receiver’s actual possession is not interfered with.
2. The rule against interference is primarily intended to prevent conflicts between different courts. Where the same court that appointed the receiver orders the levy or sale, no conflict of jurisdiction arises. The Supreme Court cited precedents (Cu Unjieng e Hijos vs. Mabalacat Sugar Co. and Orlanes & Banaag Trans. Co. vs. Asiatic Petroleum Co.) establishing that the court which placed property under receivership has jurisdiction to order its sale.
3. In this case, the garnishment and execution sale were ordered by the same Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and indeed by the same Judge (Teodoro), who appointed the receiver in the related case (No. 2371). Therefore, the jurisdictional conflict contemplated by the rule does not exist.
4. Furthermore, the receivership was limited to the “possession” and “administration” of the Eden Theater building. The order of execution was directed not against the partnership properties or the theater, but specifically against “whatever rights, interest and participation” Gorgonio Pandes had in the partnership. This interest is Pandes’s separate property, distinct from the partnership assets. The partnership has a juridical personality separate from its partners. Pandes’s separate interest was not under the receiver’s custody or administration and was therefore not in custodia legis, making it subject to levy without the appointing court’s permission.