GO CHI GUN ALIAS CHIPBUN GOCHECO, GO AWAY ALIAS LIM KOC AND FEDERICO M. CHUA HIONG, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. GO CHO, GO TECSON, DONATO GO TIAK GIAP, CESAREO GO TEK HONG, A…

When the receivership proceeding is terminated, who pays for the receiver’s
compensation? This is the issue in this appeal.

Way back in 1949, the Manila court of first instance (Civil Case No. 5436) at
the request of Go Chi Gun, et al, appointed a receiver to take charge of certain
properties of the deceased Go Checo of which the petitioners demanded a portion,
claiming to be his heirs. The appointment was opposed by the defendants and the
matter reached this Court in G. R. No. 3937. This Court, in April 1951, refused
to interfere with the lower court’s discretion in appointing a receiver.

Thereafter, trial on the merits proceeded in the court below, the plaintiffs
trying to annul the project of partition of the properties of Go Checo which had
already been approved in his corresponding estate proceedings as long ago as
February 1916. The plaintiffs obtained favorable judgment. However, on appeal,
it was reversed by this Court in G. R. No. L-5208, “with costs against
plaintiffs-appellees” i.e. against Go Chi Gun, et al.

Upon the return of the record to the Manila court, the defendants, who had
finally won, presented to the Clerk a bill of costs including therein, among
other items, (a) the receiver’s bond premium of P1,227.75, and (b)
the receiver’s compensation of P5,000.00. Over the opposition of Go Chi Gun, et
al., the Clerk approved the items; but on appeal to the judge, the latter
disallowed the bond premium, and charged the receiver’s compensation partly to
defendants and partly to plaintiffs, i. e., P1,000.00, to the first and
P4,000.00 to the second. Only the latter appealed.

Go Chi Gun, et al. contend that as the receivership had-been properly
established, the compensation of the receiver should be charged against the
funds under receivership, and not against the party who requested the
appointment of a receiver.

The law in this jurisdiction gives the court power to grant to the receiver
reasonable compensation “to be taxed as costs against the defeated party, or
apportioned, as justice requires” (Sec. 8, Rules 61). Nobody questions the
amount of the receiver’s compensation. This Court gave judgment for defendants
“with costs against plaintiffs”. Prima facie therefore, the plaintiffs
should pay such compensation as part of the costs. However, the Manila court
being of the opinion that the receivership had “also been of some utility to the
defendants, because foreclosure of the mortgage of some properties had thereby
been prevented,” charged the latter with a portion of the receiver’s fees, i. e.
P1,000.00.

We do not see any reason to disapprove the lower court’s exercise of its
discretion.

Some American decisions are cited to the effect that when receivership has
been established in a proper manner, the compensation of the receiver should be
paid from ihe funds under receivership. But obviously, they can not prevail over
the clear provisions of our Rules of Court.

Wherefore, the order in question is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellants.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.