GR 44831; (October, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44831 ; October 8, 1936
CHUA KE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. QUIRICO ABETO, Judge of First Instance of Manila, BENITO GAERLAN, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Chua Ke and Cu Peng were plaintiffs in a case for the dissolution and liquidation of the partnership “Benito Gaerlan & Co.” against respondent Benito Gaerlan, the managing partner. The trial court ordered Gaerlan to transfer P25,000 of partnership funds he had deposited in a bank in Amoy, China, to a local bank in Manila. Due to non-compliance, the court later permitted Gaerlan, with petitioners’ consent, to file a P25,000 bond conditioned on delivering said amount to the partnership or its representative, but only to the extent of the petitioners’ interest therein. Subsequently, the trial court reduced the bond to P10,000 based on Gaerlan’s claim that the petitioners’ share in the P25,000 did not exceed 36%. Petitioners challenged this reduction via certiorari, alleging the judge acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the trial judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in reducing the bond from P25,000 to P10,000.
RULING
No. The petition for certiorari is denied. The trial court had jurisdiction over the principal case and the incidental matter of the bond. The reduction of the bond was within its discretionary power, as the bond’s obligation was limited to securing only the petitioners’ interest in the P25,000, not the full amount. Any error in the exercise of this discretion is an error of judgment, not correctible by certiorari, which only lies for lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion. The court found no such jurisdictional defect or abuse.
AI Generated by Armztrong.