GR 581; (Febuary, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 581 : February 14, 1902
In the matter of the application of A.W. PRAUTCH for a writ of habeas corpus.
FACTS:
Arthur W. Prautch filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and certiorari, alleging he was unlawfully detained by the Sheriff of Manila. His arrest was ordered by the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 412 of the newly enacted Code of Civil Procedure (effective October 1, 1901), which allows for the arrest of a defendant in certain civil cases. The civil suit against him was based on a cause of action that arose on August 20, 1900. Prautch contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to order his arrest because, at the time the contract was made, no law authorizing civil arrest existed. He argued that applying the new Code’s provision would give it a retroactive effect, impair the obligation of contracts, and deprive him of a vested right.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the order of arrest under the Code of Civil Procedure for a cause of action that arose prior to the Code’s effectivity.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the right to imprison for debt, or the exemption from it, is not a part of the contract itself. Statutes providing for arrest in civil cases are penal in nature, aimed at preventing fraud in the making or performance of contracts, and are not considered laws impairing contractual obligations. The Court further ruled that, under Section 528 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a writ of habeas corpus is not allowed when the person is detained under process issued by a court that had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person. The Court of First Instance had such jurisdiction, and any question regarding the sufficiency of the grounds for arrest or the merits of the claim is for that court to determine, with errors reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The Court also found that a writ of certiorari was improper as there was an available appeal and no showing that the inferior court acted without jurisdiction. The concurring opinion emphasized that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged fraudulent act occurred before the Code’s effectivity, and that any defects in the affidavit for arrest did not deprive the court of jurisdiction but merely rendered its order voidable, correctable on appeal.