GR L 13602; (April, 1918) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13602; April 6, 1918
LEUNG BEN, plaintiff, vs. P. J. O’BRIEN, JAMES A OSTRAND and GEO. R. HARVEY, judges of First Instance of city of Manila, defendants.
FACTS:
P. J. O’Brien filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Leung Ben to recover P15,000 allegedly lost in gambling games. In his verified complaint, O’Brien applied for a writ of attachment against Leung Ben’s property under the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that Leung Ben was about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors. The court granted the attachment, and the sheriff attached P15,000 deposited by Leung Ben with the International Banking Corporation. Leung Ben moved to quash the attachment, but his motion was denied. He then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the attachment order. He argued that the statutory action to recover money lost at gambling is not an action arising from “contract, express or implied” as required for an attachment under the Code, and that the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the Supreme Court can grant relief via certiorari if the Court of First Instance issued an attachment without statutory authority.
2. Whether the statutory obligation to restore money won at gambling is an obligation arising from “contract, express or implied” under the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby authorizing the issuance of an attachment.
RULING:
1. Yes, certiorari is the proper remedy. The Supreme Court held that it has original jurisdiction by certiorari over proceedings of Courts of First Instance when said courts have exceeded their jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. An “excess of jurisdiction” includes not only a total lack of jurisdiction but also an irregular exercise of judicial power, such as issuing an attachment without statutory authority. Since the issue involved a pure question of law apparent from the complaint, and no adequate remedy by appeal existed for the immediate relief sought, certiorari was appropriate.
2. No, the obligation is not contractual. The Court ruled that the obligation to return money lost at gambling, created by statute (Article 1798 of the Civil Code, now Article 2014), is an obligation imposed by law (ex lege), not one arising from “contract, express or implied.” A contractual obligation requires consent, either express or implied from conduct. The statutory obligation to repay gambling losses arises independently of any agreement or promise between the parties. Therefore, the main action is not one arising from contract. Consequently, the ground for attachment under the first paragraph of Section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for actions arising from contract) was inapplicable. The attachment was issued without legal basis and in excess of the court’s jurisdiction.
DISPOSITIVE:
The writ of certiorari was granted. The order of the Court of First Instance issuing the attachment was annulled, and the attachment was ordered discharged.