G.R. No. 31008, February 25, 1929
TANG AH CHAN, petitioner, vs. Honorable ANACLETO DIAZ, Judge of First Instance of Manila, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tang Ah Chan was convicted of theft with falsification of private documents and sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to indemnify the Pacific Commercial Co. in the amount of P30,029.94. Upon appeal, the respondent judge required him to post an appeal bond of P22,000 for his provisional liberty, which he posted. He filed this certiorari petition, contending that the bond was excessive, as the common practice was to fix the bond at about P1,000 per year of imprisonment (thus, around P9,000 for his 8-year sentence). Separately, after his conviction, the Pacific Commercial Co. filed an independent civil action against him for indemnity and obtained an attachment and receivership over his property, including his bakery business. Tang Ah Chan also sought to annul these civil proceedings, arguing that while the criminal case was pending on appeal, the court had no authority to entertain the attachment.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in fixing the appeal bond at P22,000.
2. Whether the proceedings in the independent civil action (including attachment and receivership) are void.

RULING

1. On the appeal bond: The Supreme Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge in fixing the bond at P22,000. While certiorari may lie for manifest abuse of discretion in fixing bail, the Court found that the judge legitimately considered the substantial civil indemnity (over P30,000) and the risk that the petitioner might forfeit a lower bond and abscond. The fact that the petitioner was able to post the bond also indicated it was not beyond his means. The deviation from the alleged common practice was justified under the circumstances.

2. On the civil proceedings: The Court declined to rule on the validity of the attachment and receivership in the independent civil action, holding that the ordinary remedy of appeal was adequate to address any error. The Court noted that the issue was not foreclosed by prior jurisprudence (U.S. v. Namit), as that case involved attachment as an incident in a criminal prosecution, whereas here it was sought in an independent civil action.

DISPOSITIVE:
The petition for certiorari was DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner.