G.R. No. 28948 , March 24, 1928
M. SINGH, petitioner, vs. CAYETANO LUKBAN, Judge of First Instance of Tarlac, and JOSE P. FAUSTO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner M. Singh engaged respondent Jose P. Fausto as his lawyer under a written contingent fee agreement (30% of recovery) for a damages suit against a sheriff. The court awarded Singh damages, including attorney’s fees. Before the judgment was rendered, Singh and Fausto formalized their 30% contingent fee agreement. Later, without consulting Fausto, Singh settled the judgment debt for P4,000, accepting a significant loss, and offered Fausto only P400 as full settlement. Fausto sued Singh for his fees. The trial court (Judge Cayetano Lukban) issued an order for a writ of preliminary attachment against Singh’s property and, failing that, ordered Singh to deposit the claimed amount (P1,821.80) with the court clerk within three days under penalty of contempt. Singh moved to suspend the order, claiming inability to pay and lack of opportunity to present evidence on his financial condition as per the Code of Civil Procedure. The court denied his motion and later ordered him to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for disobeying its orders. Singh failed to appear and subsequently evaded arrest. Through his new attorney, Singh filed this petition for a writ of prohibition to stop the contempt proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should issue a writ of prohibition to command the respondents to desist from further action in the contempt proceedings against the petitioner.

RULING

No. The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.
The Supreme Court held that the extraordinary writ of prohibition is not warranted. First, the petitioner comes to court with “unclean hands,” having sought to defraud his former attorney of legitimately contracted fees. Second, the respondent judge’s orders, even if potentially erroneous, were within his jurisdiction. Prohibition does not lie to correct mere errors of judgment but only to restrain acts without or in excess of jurisdiction. The petitioner’s repeated disobedience of court orders and his subsequent evasion of the court’s process further disqualify him from seeking equitable relief. A person who defies and hides from the court’s authority is not in a position to demand such an extraordinary remedy.