G.R. No. L-38843. August 26, 1977
PABLO M. BERBERABE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. NICANOR P. NICOLAS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, BRANCH I, THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAUJAN THROUGH THE HON. AMAD…
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
Petition for certiorari and mandamus, with a prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
On December 31, 1968, the herein petitioner, Pablo M. Berberabe, and the respondent Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, entered
into a contract whereby the said respondent municipality leased unto the
petitioner the Naujan Butas
Fishery for a period of ten (10) years, from January 1, 1969 to December 31,
1978, for an annual rental of P202,500.00, to be paid quarterly.[1]
By reason of an alleged violation of the aforesaid contract by
the lessor, the herein petitioner filed a complaint
against the Municipality of Naujan on June 18, 1973 for the rescission of
the contract of lease and for damages.
The case was docketed in the Court of First Instance of Mindoro Oriental as Civil Case No. R-2427, and assigned to
Branch I, presided by the respondent Judge Nicanor P.
Nicolas.[2]
Upon petition of the respondent municipal corporation, the
respondent court, on August 24, 1973,
appointed the Acting Clerk of Court, Eliseo Q. Oliva, the Provincial Sheriff, Juan M. Abadejos,
and the Provincial Auditor, Francisco Serrano, as receivers of the Butas Fishery.[3]
On November 8, 1973,
the respondent Municipality of Naujan filed a complaint for
the rescission of the same contract of lease and foreclosure of mortgage
against the petitioner for the alleged failure of the latter to pay two (2)
quarterly rentals. The case was docketed
as Civil Case No. R-2444 of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro Oriental. Both cases are still pending resolution.[4]
The petitioner vigorously objected to the appointment of receivers
over the leased property so that on February 25, 1974, he filed a petition for certiorari
and mandamus with this Court, to annul the order of the respondent court
placing the property under receivership and for the return of the management
and possession of the Fishery to him.
The case was docketed as G.R. No. L-38257, entitled, “Pablo M. Berberabe, petitioner, versus Hon. Nicanor P. Nicolas, etc., et al., respondents.”
After appropriate proceedings, this Court issued a Resolution on March 11, 1974, which reads, as
follows:
“L- 38257
(Pablo M. Berberabe, vs. Hon. Nicanor
P. Nicolas, etc., et al.).- At the hearing of this case this morning, the
following appeared and orally argued:
“Atty. Isidoro A. Aclan for the petitioner, and Provincial Fiscal Nestor Andrada for respondents.
“After hearing both parties and being apprised by them of all
aspects of the case, including the equities of the situation, and considering
that both parties have asked in their respective actions in the lower court for
the rescission of the subject contract, and, therefore, there can be no
obstacle to the respondent municipality recovering immediately the possession
of the subject matter of the said contract, in order that it may deal with it
according to law, with the consequent dissolution of the receivership impugned
in the petition herein, the Court RESOLVED, upon agreement of the parties, to
DISMISS the herein petition, without prejudice to petitioner limiting his
relief in his action in the respondent court to demand for damages for alleged
breach of the subject contract, and without prejudice also to the immediate
dissolution of the receivership upon delivery by petitioner to respondent
municipality of the subject matter of said contract, as agreed upon in open
hearing.
“The Court reiterates its policy of looking with disfavor at
the appointment of officials and employees of the trial courts either as
receivers or as helpers, in any category, of receivers. At the same time, looking into the equities
herein involved, the Court advised the Provincial Fiscal of Oriental Mindoro as well as the Mayor of Naujan,
who were personally present, to try to effect the most equitable arrangements,
permitted by law, by which both parties, the Municipality of Naujan and the petitioner, may not be unnecessarily prejudiced
by what has happened to the contract which they must have both entered into in
good faith.”[5]
Upon the ground that this Court, in its Resolution of March 11,
1974, had directed the immediate dissolution of the receivership upon delivery
of the Naujan Butas Fishery
by petitioner to the Municipality of Naujan, and
claiming that there should be a prior return of the leased property to him in
order to comply with this Court’s resolution of March 11, 1974, the petitioner
filed motions, seeking authority to withdraw from the Philippine National
Bank, Calapan Branch, all the proceeds from the Naujan Butas Fishery deposited by
the receivers with the said bank,[6]
and for the delivery to him of the Naujan Butas Fishery and all the properties being used thereat.[7]
On May 31, 1974,
the respondent court, instead, upon the recommendation of the Provincial
Fiscal, ordered the delivery of all the money in the hands of receivers and
those deposited in the Philippine National Bank to the Provincial Treasurer of
Oriental Mindoro.[8]
In another order of the same date, the respondent court directed the receivers
“to effect the material delivery of the Naujan Butas Fishery and all properties appurtenant to its
operation to the Municipal Corporation.”[9]
Claiming that the orders of May 31, 1974 were issued by the
respondent court in excess of its jurisdiction, and in contravention of this
Court’s resolution of March 11, 1974 in case G.R. No. L-38257, entitled,
“Pablo M. Berberabe, petitioner, versus Hon.
Nicanor P. Nicolas, etc., et al., respondents,”
the petitioner filed the instant petition, praying that a writ of preliminary
injunction be issued restraining the respondents, their agents and employees
from continuing to spend, and desist from spending the amount of P98,893.35 or
any fraction thereof now deposited with the Provincial Treasurer of Oriental Mindoro and P2,011.03 in the hands of Miss Lydia M. Basco and likewise ordering the respondents to immediately
turn over to the petitioner the said amount of money; and after a hearing, to
render judgment:
(a) Commanding or ordering the respondent to deliver or cause the
delivery to the petitioner the amount of P98,893.35 deposited with the
Provincial Treasurer of Oriental Mindoro as well as
the amount of P2,011.03 in the hands of Miss Lydia M. Basco;
(b) Order the respondent Municipality of Naujan
to reimburse the petitioner the amount of P668,972.50 as one-half (1/2) of the
value of useful improvements introduced by petitioner at Naujan
Butas Fishery, suitable to the use for which it was
intended without altering the substance of the property leased; or command or
order the respondents, Municipality of Naujan, to
allow petitioner to remove all his improvements, in the event said respondent
municipality refused to make the reimbursement;
(c) Command or order the respondent receiver and the respondent
Judge to settle the account of receivership and deliver or cause the delivery
of all the properties, documents, money and other belongings to the petitioner,
which lawfully belongs to him;
(d) Annul the order of the respondent Judge ordering the receiver
to deliver, Naujan Butas
Fishery to respondent Municipality of Naujan and in
lieu thereof, order that the said Naujan Butas Fishery be first turned over or delivered to the
petitioner; after petitioner have been reimbursed the amount of P668,972.50 by
respondent municipality, then petitioner shall deliver subject property to
respondent municipality of Naujan; but should the
municipality of Naujan refuse to make the reimbursement,
then petitioner shall remove his improvements pursuant to the provisions of
Article 1678 of the New Civil Code;
(e) Annul the order of the respondent Judge ordering the money
deposited with the Philippine National Bank, Calapan
Branch, be deposited with the office of the Provincial Treasurer as this was
made simply to unlawfully exclude petitioner from the use and enjoyment of said
cash;
(f) Annul or declare unlawful all the expenses of the receivers
amounting to P144,206.01 taken from the P245,110.39 proceed of Naujan Butas Fishery, this being
the exclusive money of petitioner; and order the respondents to reimburse the
amount in full to the petitioner;
(g) Order the respondents to pay damages sustained by the
petitioner by reason of their acts and/or omission; and
(h) Order the respondents to pay the expenses of litigation;
attorney’s fee for P5,000.00, and likewise pay the cost of the suit.[10]
Commenting on the petition, the Provincial Fiscal of Oriental Mindoro, in behalf of the respondents, stated that the claim
of the petitioner is a matter of evidence which the petitioner should have
presented in the hearing of the case in the lower court and which this Court
cannot possibly decide without a hearing of the case on its merits.
Indeed, the demands of the petitioner for the delivery of certain
sums of money to him are not based on judgments for the payment of money, the
execution of which may be enforced by mandamus, but a mere money claim
which has yet to be determined after a hearing and the presentation of evidence
by the parties, so that mandamus is not the proper remedy.
The claim of the petitioner that the Order of May 31, 1974, directing the receivers
to deliver the Butas Fishery to the, municipality
of Naujan,
had infringed upon this Court’s resolution of March 11, 1974 in case G.R. No. L-38257, wherein the Court
had allegedly enjoined the receiver to deliver the leased property first to the
petitioner so that the petitioner can, in turn, deliver the same to the
municipality, is without merit. In the
said resolution of March 11, 1974, “the Court RESOLVED, upon agreement
of the parties, to DISMISS the herein petition, without prejudice to
petitioner limiting his relief in his action in the respondent court to demand
for damages for alleged breach of the subject contract, and without prejudice
also to the immediate dissolution of the receivership upon delivery by
petitioner to respondent municipality of the subject-matter of said contract,
as agreed upon in open hearing.” In the “open hearing”
referred to in the said resolution, the following transpired:
“Honorable Justice Barredo:
To cut the proceeding
short, as you can see all these proceedings are on the record. Can we enter into a resolution by agreement
of the parties, that this petition be dismissed without prejudice of claim for
damages in the lower court and without prejudice for the dissolution of the
receivership?
“Atty. Aclan:
Yes, Your Honor.
“Honorable Justice Zaldivar:
What does the Fiscal
say?
“Fiscal Andrada:
Yes, Your Honor.”[11]
It could be seen therefrom
that this Court did not order the dissolution of the receivership; nor did it
order the delivery of the Naujan Butas
Fishery to the petitioner for the latter to give to the respondent municipality
as a precondition for the dissolution of the receivership. Hence, the orders complained of cannot be
said to contravene this Court’s resolution of March 11, 1974 in case G.R. No. L-
38257.
At any rate, the orders complained of are without doubt
interlocutory in nature which could be resolved in the appeal of the main
cases, and this Court, as a rule, does not entertain a petition for certiorari
questioning the legality and validity of an interlocutory order unless grave
abuse of discretion is patently committed in its issuance, or that the lower
court has acted capriciously and whimsically, in which case, this Court may
exercise its supervisory authority to correct the error committed.[12]
The instant petition does not present a clear case of abuse of discretion which
may justify the Court’s intervention at this stage of the proceedings in the
court below.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition should be, as it is
hereby, DISMISSED. Costs against the
petitioner.
Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, and Santos,
JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., concurs. The
matters raised in the petition should be taken up in Civil Case No. R-2427, the
trial of which should be consolidated with Civil Case No. R-2444. The disposition of the two cases should be
expedited.
The sense of this Court’s resolution of March 11, 1974 is that the fishpond should be
returned to the municipality of Naujan. That means ipso facto the dissolution
of the receivership. Whether it is the receiver
or the petitioner who should effect the return is immaterial.
The restoration of the possession of the fishpond to the
municipality is without prejudice to petitioner lessee’s claim for damages.
[1] Rollo, p. 20.
[2]
par. 4, Petition, Rollo, p. 4.
[3]
par. 6, Petition; See also p. 33, Rollo of
G.R. No. L-38257.
[4] Rollo, p. 83.
[5] Id.,
p. 27; See also p. 117, Rollo of G.R. No.
L-38257.
[6] Id.,
p. 29.
[7] Id.,
p. 61.
[8] Id.,
p. 38.
[9] Id.,
p. 66.
[10] Id.,
pp. 17-18.
[11] Id.,
p. 70.
[12]
Manila Electric Co. vs. Enriquez, 110 Phil. 499; Savory Luncheonette vs.
Lakas Ng Manggagawang
Filipino, G.R. No. L- 38964,
Jan. 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 258;
De Midgely vs. Ferandos,
G.R. No. L-34314, May 13, 1975,
71 O.G. No. 41, p. 6830, 64 SCRA 23.