G.R. No. L-10900
October 8, 1917
In re guardianship of the minors FELIPE and ANTONIO TAMBOCO, TAN ENG and TAN LINJO. DONATO CHUATONGCO, appellant.

FACTS:
On January 1, 1910, Justina Plaza, as guardian of the minor children of her deceased husband Tamboco, delivered the sum of P2,241.32 belonging to the minors to the mercantile firm Quian Sieng & Co. The appellant, Donato Chuatongco, as manager of the firm, issued a receipt acknowledging receipt of the money and agreeing to account for it upon demand. On November 7, 1914, the Court of First Instance of Surigao, exercising guardianship jurisdiction, ordered Chuatongco to deposit the money in a bank in the minors’ names or provide a mortgage security of at least P3,000. Chuatongco failed to comply. Consequently, on March 27, 1915, the court ordered his arrest and imprisonment until compliance. Chuatongco appealed, contending the order was unlawful.

ISSUE:
Whether the court’s order of imprisonment for failure to comply with its directive to deposit or secure the money was valid, considering the nature of the obligation created by the transaction.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court vacated the order of imprisonment. The transaction between Justina Plaza and Quian Sieng & Co. constituted an ordinary loan, not a technical deposit. The receipt was a mere acknowledgment of indebtedness, and the agreement for the firm to pay annual interest (though not stated in the receipt) indicated the money was to be used in its business, characteristic of a loan. Under Section 611 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while a probate court may imprison for disobedience to its orders, it cannot do so for non-payment of an ordinary debt. The proviso in Section 611 explicitly prohibits imprisonment for ordinary debt. Thus, the lower court’s order was unauthorized. Costs were imposed de officio.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.