Case Summary (G.R. No. 13602)
Procedural Background
On December 12, 1917, P. J. O’Brien sued Leung Ben in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover ₱15,000 alleged lost by gambling. O’Brien’s verified complaint invoked sections 424 and 412(1) of the 1902 Code of Civil Procedure to obtain a preliminary attachment on the ground that the defendant was about to depart the Philippines with intent to defraud creditors. The court granted attachment, and the sheriff seized Leung Ben’s ₱15,000 deposit with the International Banking Corporation. Leung Ben moved to quash; the motion was denied. He then petitioned the Supreme Court, on January 8, 1918, for certiorari to annul the attachment.
Issues for Resolution
- Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction via certiorari to review and set aside an attachment granted without statutory authority?
- Does an action to recover money lost at gaming constitute a “cause of action arising upon contract, express or implied,” thereby justifying attachment under sections 412 and 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Jurisdiction to Grant Certiorari
Under section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court may issue certiorari to quash proceedings of inferior courts “wherever said courts have exceeded their jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.” Sections 217–221 of the Code prescribe the procedure for such petitions. “Excess of jurisdiction” encompasses acts by a court that, while it possesses general jurisdiction over the main action, lack statutory authority as ancillary remedies—such as a writ of attachment issued without proper legal ground. Precedent establishes that interlocutory remedies exceeding lawful grant may be corrected by certiorari when no adequate alternative remedy exists and delay would cause irreparable harm. The remedy by appeal or attachment bond is not sufficiently speedy to protect against the violent nature of attachment. The Court accordingly found certiorari to be the appropriate vehicle if the attachment rested on no statutory basis.
Meaning of “Contract, Express or Implied”
Sections 412(1) and 424 authorize attachment in actions “arising upon contract, express or implied,” when the defendant is about to depart with intent to defraud. The Court examined the common-law and civil-law traditions of contract classification. In civil-law doctrine, obligations may arise by statute (ex lege) or by contractual agreement, express or implied. English-American law distinguishes debts (quid pro quo obligations) and assumpsit (promissory obligations) but treats both as contracts, express or implied. An implied contract under the common law includes statutory duties to restore money received improperly, enforceable by assumpsit.
Application to Gambling-Loss Recovery
Act No. 1757 penalized gambling and conferred a civil right to recover money lost at banking or percentage games (section
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 13602)
Facts
- On December 12, 1917, P. J. O’Brien sued Leung Ben in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila for ₱15,000 allegedly lost by the plaintiff in a series of gambling, banking, and percentage games.
- The plaintiff’s verified complaint invoked sections 424 and 412(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), asserting that the defendant was about to leave the Philippine Islands with intent to defraud his creditors and praying for an attachment of the defendant’s property.
- The CFI issued the attachment; the sheriff attached ₱15,000 deposited by Leung Ben with the International Banking Corporation.
- Leung Ben appeared and moved to quash the attachment; the CFI dismissed the motion.
Procedural History
- On January 8, 1918, Leung Ben filed in the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari against P. J. O’Brien and the presiding CFI judges (James A. Ostrand and Geo. R. Harvey).
- He requested certification of the record and revocation of the attachment order with costs.
- The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause; respondents filed their demurrer on January 21, 1918.
- The case was submitted on the pleadings under section 514 of the CPC.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court may entertain and grant certiorari when the CFI has issued an attachment beyond statutory authority.
- Whether the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming constitutes a cause of action “arising upon contract, express or implied” under section 412(1) of the CPC.
Scope of the Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction by Certiorari
- Section 514 CPC grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction by certiorari over CFI proceedings in which the court exceeded its jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
- Sections 217–221 CPC apply to certiorari proceedings in the Supreme Court by incorporation.
- “Excess of jurisdiction” includes bot