G.R. No. L-14890 September 30, 1963CONRADO ALCANTARA, petitioner, vs.HON. MACAPANTON AAS, Pre!"#"$% &'#%e, r($)* ++ o, t*e Co'rto, -"r!t +$!t($)e o, D(.(o ($# MART+N T. ACARON, respondents.Conrado Alcantara in his own behalf as petitioner.Desquitado and Acurantes for respondent Martin T. Bacaron. /NG0ON, C.J.:The Case. Petitioner seeks to annulthe order of the respondent judgeremoving him as receiver, and appointing Martin T. Bacaron in his place.Material Facts. In March, 19!, "lcantara sued Bacaron partl# toforeclosethechattel mortgagee$ecuted%#thelatter onacaterpillartractor &ith its accessories '(ivil (ase )o. **+* of ,avao-. Pursuant to aclause in the mortgage contract, the ,avao court designated "lcantara asreceiver of the tractor. and he dul# /uali0ed as such. Thereafter, &ith thecourt1sapproval, heleasedthemachineto2erapio2a%lada. 3ponthee$piration of the lease, and after 2a%lada1s failure to return the machine,said court at the instance of "lcantara,1 declared 2a%lada to %e incontempt of court and 0ned him in the amount of P144.44 on 5cto%er 6,19+.Mean&hile, on 5cto%er *, 19+, alleging that "lcantara had neglected hisduties as receiver, %ecause he did not get the tractor, Bacaron petitionedthecourttorelievesuchreceiver, andtoappointhim'Bacaron-asthereceiver instead.* 5pposing the petition, "lcantara made the follo&ingmanifestations, in a pleading to the court dated )ovem%er *6, 19+.*. That in fact the herein plainti78receiver has e$erted all e7orts tosecure the possession of the tractor &ill /uestion, and has come tocourt timeandagaintocompel thelessee, 2erapio2a%lada, todeliver the tractor to the receiver, %ut it seems that even9onora%le (ourt is at merc# of said 2erapio 2a%lada..:. That infact, until andunlessthetractor isdeliveredtothereceiver as ordered %# the9onora%le (ourt, thesaid 2erapio2a%lada is lia%le to the 9onora%le (ourt for continues contempt inas much as the su%ject of the contempt is non8compliance &ith theorder of the 9onora%le (ourt. ....6. That in the vie& of the attendant circumstances related to thetractor in this case, it most respectfull# pra#ed that the plainti78receiver %e immediatel# authori;ed to 0le a case of replevin &ithdamages against the person of 2erapio 2a%lada, holding his suret#%ond lia%le therefor, if proper, as most legal and e$pedientprocedure to retake the tractor in /uestion. .9o&ever, despite the a%ove representations, the respondent dent judge ofthe ,avao court, in an order dated ,ecem%er 14, 19+, relieved "lcantaraandappointedBacaronas receiver of thetractor, &ithout %ond, &ithauthorit# to receive the sum of P*,444.44 in "lcantara1s hands as rentals ofthe tractor, and to the end the same for repairs if necessar#.9ismotiontoreconsider having%eendenied, "lcantara0led&iththis(ourt the instant special civil action. "nd his re/uest a preliminar#injunction&asissuedtorestrainenforcement of 9is9onor1saforesaidorder of ,ecem%er 14, 19+.Thequestionsare: 'a- thepropriet#of "lcantara1sremoval. and'%- thelegalit# of Bacaron1s appointment and /uali0cations.Discussion. It appearsthat actingonthecomplaint of "lcantaraon2eptem%er 11, 19+, : the court re/uired 2a%lada under pain of contempt,to deliver the tractor on or %efore 2eptem%er :4, 19+, at the junction ofthe ,avao Penal(olon# plainti78receiver failedtotakestepstotakepossessionof thetractorleased to 2a%lada>. It could have meant that "lcantara failed to take thetractor directl# fromthe hands of 2a%lada fromthe place &here it&as, without resortin to o!cial help. If the court meant as it must havemeant that "lcantarafailedtoe$haust judicial remediestocompel2a%ladatocompl#&iththeordertoplacethetractorat the>junction>previousl#mentioned, thenit fell intoerror, %ecause"lcantarahadine7ect, suggested that 2a%lada %e held in >continuous contempt> '"nne$ @-i.e., i"prisoned until he placed the tractor at the >junction>. and the courtinstead of acting accordingl# under the propert#, real or personal, &hich is the su%ject of the action> appliesto all the cases speci0ed in the 0ve paragraphs in said 2ection 1, &hichare?2ection 1. ....'a- Fhen a corporation has %een dissolved, or is insolvent, or is inimminent danger of insolvenc#, or has forfeited its corporaterights.'%- Fhen it appears from the complaint or ans&er, and such otherproof asthejudgema#re/uire, that thepart#appl#ingfortheappointment of receiverhasaninterest inthepropert#orfund&hichisindanger of %einglost, removed, ormateriall#injuredunless a receiver %e appointed to guard and preserve it.'c- Fhen it appears in an action %# the mortgagee for theforeclosure of a mortgage that the propert# is in danger of %eing&asted or materiall# injured, and that its value is pro%a%l#insuEcient todischargethemortgagede%t, or that thepartieshave so stipulated in the contract of mortgage.'d- "fter judgment, to preserve the propert# during the pendenc#of an appeal or to dispose of it according to the judgment, or to aide$ecution &hen the e$ecution has %een returned unsatis0ed or thejudgment de%tor refuses to appl# his propert# in satisfaction of thejudgment, or other&ise to carr# the judgment into e7ect.'e- Fhenever in other cases it appears that the appointment of areceiver is the most convinient and feasi%le means of preserving,administering, or disposing of the propert# in litigation."nd it is undisputed that in the case at %ar, the properties %eing placedunder receivership are not the su%ject of the action.=ike&ise, it is /uite plain that 2ection * of ,>- in favor of plainti7, he A 6stepped into the shoes> of the dr =eo Gnterprises, Inc., .A and theproperties of the said de%tor having all su%se/uentl# passed on to Pajarillo,there is no reason, legal or other&ise, for relieving defendants of their saidundertaking.>The court a quo like&ise declared that '1- >the receivership &as notterminated %# virtue of the appeal interposed %# =eo Gnterprises, Inc., oneof thedefendantsin(ivil (ase)o. 4*41, %ecauseadecision&hichisappealed cannot %e the su%ject of e$ecution>. '*- >granting arguendo thatthe decision is 0nal and e$ecutor#, the said decision cannot %ind nor can it%eenforced againsttheplainti7inthe presentcase%ecause itisnotapart# in (ivil (ase )o. 4*41>. and ':- >&hen "tt#. Pajarillo assumed theo%ligation of =eo Gnterprises, Inc., as a Cromtheforegoingjudgment, third8part#defendant DregorioM. Pajarillointerposedanappeal tothe(ourt of "ppeals. Theaforesaid"ppellate(ourt, in turn certi0ed the same to this (ourt on the ground that there isno /uestion of fact involved, %ut onl# one of la&.The legal /uestion is &hether or not third part# defendant8appellantDregorio M. Pajarillo is, under the facts and circumstances o%taining, lia%leto plainti7 for the unpaid amount claimed. 3pon the resolution of this issue&ill in turn depend the lia%ilit# of defendant8third8part# plainti7(onsolacionInsuranceKsuret#(o., Inc. underthe2uret#Bond, onthe%asis of &hichit &as ordered%# thecourt aquo to pa# theamountinvolved to plainti78appellee.1. " receiver is not an agent or representative of an# part# to the action.9eisanoEcer of thecourt e$ercisinghisfunctionsintheinterest ofneither plainti7nor defendant, %ut for thecommon%ene0t of all theparties in interest. 39e performs his duties >su%ject to thecontrolof the(ourt,> and ever# /uestion involved in the receivership ma# %e determined%# the court taking cogni;ance of the receivership proceedings. 4 Thus, >areceiver, strictl#speaking, hasnoright orpo&ertomakean#contract%inding the propert# or fund in his custod# or to pa# out funds in his hands&ithout the authorit# or approval of the court ... . > "s e$plained %# @usticeMoran, speakingforthe(ourt ina19:9case6... Thecustod#of thereceiver is the custod# of the court. 9is acts and possession are the actsand possession of the court, and his contracts and lia%ilities are, incontemplation of la&, the contracts and liabilities of the court. "s anecessar# conse/uence, receiver is f su%ject to the control and supervisionof thecourt at e-er0step inhismanagement of thepropert#or fundsplaced in his hands. ... 2 9e cannot operate independentl# of the court, andcannot enter into an# contract &ithout its approval.... Gldepositario nopuede o%rar independientemente deljusgado. contrata %ajo el control del mismo. sin suautori;acion o apro%aci6n e$presa, el depositario no puedeperfeccionar ningun contrato. ... 8*. In the case at %ar, appellant Pajarillo does not dispute the fact that heneversecuredthecourt1s approal ofeither theagreementofMarch11,196:, &ith Paci0c Merchandising (orporation or of his Indemnit#"greement &ith the (onsolacion Insurance K 2uret# (o., Inc. on March 1A,196:, in consideration of the performance %ond su%mitted %# the latter toPaci0c Merchandising (orporation to guarantee the pa#ment of theo%ligation. "s the person to &hom the possession of the theater and itse/uipment &asa&arded%#thecourt in(ivil (ase)o. 4*41, it &ascertainl#tohis personal pro0t andadvantagethat thesaleat pu%licauction of the li/uipment of the theater &as prevented %# his e$ecution ofthe aforesaid agreement and su%mission of the afore8mentioned %ond. Inorder to %ind the propert# or fund in his hands as receiver, he should haveapplied for and o%tained fromthe court authorit# to enter into theaforesaid contract. 9 3nauthori;ed contracts of a receiver do not %ind thecourt in charge of receivership. The# are the receiver1s o&n contracts andare not recogni;ed %# the courts as contracts of thereceivership. 10 (onse/uentl#, theaforesaidagreement andundertakingentered into %# appellant Pajarillo not having %een approved or authori;ed%# the receivership court should, therefore, %e considered as his personalundertaking or o%ligation. (ertainl#, if such agreements &ere kno&n %# thereceivership court, it &ould not have terminated the receivership &ithoutdue notice to the judgment creditor as re/uired %# 2ection + of ... it is onl# simple justice that Pajarilloshouldpa#forthesaidclaim, other&isehe&ould%eenrichinghimself&ithout pa#ing plainti7 for the cost of certain materials that &ent into itsconstruction. ... It is arg=icd ho&ever, that he did so onl# as a receiver of=eo Pajarillo %# virtue of the judgment in (ivil (ase )o. 4*41 allof theproperties of =eo Gnterprises, Inc. passed on to Pajarillo %# virtue of thejudgment in (ivil (ase )o. Q*41 ...>. This 6e"oCu"alteriousdetri"entolocupletari protest>isem%odiedin"rticle**'9uman