G.R. No. 1779 : April 22, 1904
FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE, petitioner, vs. JOHN C. SWEENEY, judge of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, respondent.

FACTS:
On January 12, 1904, an action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila by Eleanor Erica Strong and Richard P. Strong against Francisco Gutierrez Repide to annul the sale of certain shares of stock. The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent acquisition and sought the appointment of a receiver for the shares pending litigation, filing an $8,000 bond. The court immediately appointed the sheriff as receiver and ordered Repide to deliver the shares. Upon Repide’s failure to comply, the court initiated contempt proceedings. After a hearing, the court found Repide in contempt on January 15, 1904, and ordered his detention until compliance. Repide excepted and filed a notice of appeal. The court set a bond to suspend the contempt judgment at $60,000 (U.S. currency). Repide later filed a bill of exceptions regarding the contempt proceedings, but the judge refused to sign it, stating it could only be presented after final judgment in the main action. Repide then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to sign the bill of exceptions and to allow him to post a reasonable bail bond (not exceeding $5,000) pending appeal.

ISSUE:
1. Whether a bill of exceptions in a contempt proceeding may be signed and brought to the Supreme Court for review before final judgment in the principal action.
2. Whether the amount of the bond required to suspend execution of a contempt judgment is within the discretion of the trial court and what the basis for fixing such amount should be.

RULING:
1. On the bill of exceptions: The Supreme Court held that, under Section 240 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, a judgment or order in a contempt case (except those under Section 231) may be reviewed by the Supreme Court only after final judgment in the main action and when the cause has been regularly brought up by bill of exceptions. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to have the bill of exceptions signed and presented before the final judgment in the underlying case. The petition for mandamus to compel the judge to sign the bill of exceptions was denied.

2. On the bond amount: The Court ruled that the trial judge has the authority to fix the amount of the bond required to suspend the contempt judgment. Under Section 240, the bond must be conditioned that the person in contempt will “abide and perform the order or judgment.” Consequently, the bond should be sufficient to cover the potential loss or injury to the aggrieved partyin this case, the value of the shares of stock involvedand not merely to ensure the appearance of the contemnor. The Court thus declined to direct the lower court to accept a bond not exceeding $5,000 as requested by the petitioner.

DISPOSITION: The petition for mandamus was denied. The Supreme Court refused to direct the respondent judge to sign the bill of exceptions before final judgment or to accept a bond limited to $5,000.

SEPARATE OPINION:
Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Mapa, and McDonough concurred in the denial of mandamus regarding the bill of exceptions. However, they dissented on the bond issue, arguing that the $60,000 bond was excessive, especially since the plaintiff’s claim was already secured by an attachment and an $8,000 bond in the main action. They would have ordered the Court of First Instance to accept a bond not exceeding $5,000 (gold).