Case Digest (G.R. No. 13602) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Leung Ben vs. P. J. O’Brien, G.R. No. L-13602, decided April 6, 1918, P. J. O’Brien (plaintiff below) filed on December 12, 1917 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila an action to recover ₱15,000 allegedly lost by him to Leung Ben in a series of gambling, banking, and percentage games during the preceding two or three months. Invoking Sections 424 and 412(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiff secured a writ of attachment on the ground that the defendant was about to depart the Islands with intent to defraud his creditors. Pursuant thereto, the sheriff attached ₱15,000 on deposit with the International Banking Corporation. Leung Ben moved to quash the attachment, but the motion was denied by Judge James A. Ostrand. On January 8, 1918, Leung Ben petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari against P. J. O’Brien and the presiding CFI judges to review the record and revoke the attachment order. Defendants demurred on January 21, 1918. The Supreme Court fr Case Digest (G.R. No. 13602) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Underlying litigation
- On December 12, 1917, P. J. O’Brien filed suit in the CFI of Manila against Leung Ben for ₱15,000 allegedly lost in gambling, banking, and percentage games.
- In his verified complaint O’Brien sought a preliminary attachment under CCP §§ 412(1) and 424 on the ground that Leung Ben intended to depart the Philippines to defraud creditors.
- Attachment and challenge
- The trial court issued the attachment; the sheriff seized ₱15,000 on deposit with the International Banking Corporation.
- Leung Ben moved to quash the attachment in the CFI; the motion was denied.
- On January 8, 1918, Leung Ben petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari to annul the attachment order, claiming lack of statutory authority and absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
Issues:
- Availability of certiorari
- Whether the Supreme Court may entertain a certiorari petition to correct a CFI’s excess of jurisdiction when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists.
- Nature of the cause of action
- Whether the statutory obligation to restore money lost at gaming constitutes a cause of action “arising upon contract, express or implied” within CCP § 412(1).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)