SY YONG HU V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Petitioners assail the propriety of the receivership theorizing that there was no necessity therefor and that such remedy should be granted only in extreme cases and that at any rate, the rights of respondent Intestate Estate are adequately protected since notices of lis pendens of the aforesaid civil case have been annotated on the real properties of the partnership.

The findings of the CA accord with the existing rules and jurisprudence on receivership.

To ensure that no further disposition shall be made of the questioned assets and in view of the pending civil case in the lower court, there is a compelling necessity to place all these properties and assets under the management of a receivership committee. The receivership committee, which will provide active participation, through a designated representative, on the part of all interested parties, can best protect the properties involved and assure fairness and equity for all.

RECEIVERSHIP, which is admittedly a harsh remedy, should be granted with extreme caution. Sound bases therefor must appear on record, and there should be a clear showing of its necessity. The need for a receivership in the case under consideration can be gleaned from the aforecited disquisition by the CA finding that the properties of the partnership were in danger of being damaged or lost on account of certain acts of the appointed manager in liquidation.

The dispositions of certain properties by said manager, on the basis of partial partition, which was not yet final and executory, indicated that the feared irreparable injury to the properties of the partnership might happen again. So also the failure of the manager in liquidation to submit to the SEC an accounting of all the partnership assets as required in its order justified the SEC in placing the subject assets under receivership.