LEUNG BEN VS. P. J. O’BRIEN, JAMES A. OSTRAND and GEO. R.

HARVEY

FACTS:
 On December 12, 1917, an action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila by P.J. O’Brien
to recover of Leung Ben the sum of P15,000, all alleged to have been lost by the plaintiff to the defendant
in a series of gambling, banking, and percentage games conducted during the two or three months prior
to the institution of the suit.
 The plaintiff asked for an attachment against the property of the defendant, on the ground that the latter
was about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors.
 THIS ATTACHMENT WAS ISSUED.
 The provision of law under which this attachment was issued requires that there should be a cause of
action arising upon contract, express or implied.
 The contention of the petitioner is that the statutory action to recover money lost at gaming is not such an
action as is contemplated in this provision, and he insists that the original complaint shows on its face that
the remedy of attachment is not available in aid thereof; that the Court of First Instance acted in excess of
its jurisdiction in granting the writ of attachment; that the petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy by appeal or otherwise; and that consequently the writ of certiorari supplies the appropriate
remedy for this relief.

ISSUE:
1. Supposing that the Court of First Instance has granted an attachment for which there is no statutory
authority; can this court entertain the present petition and grant the desired relief?

2. Whether or not the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming is an obligation arising from
contract, express or implied?

RULING:
1. YES. Under section 514 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction by
the writ of certiorari over the proceedings of Courts of First Instance, "wherever said courts have exceeded
their jurisdiction and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy." In the same section, it is further
declared that the proceedings in the Supreme Court in such cases shall be as prescribed for Courts of First
Instance in sections 217-221, inclusive, of said Code. This has the effect of incorporating into the practice
of the Supreme Court, so far as applicable, the provisions contained in those sections to the same extent
as if they had been reproduced verbatim immediately after section 514.

2. YES. In permitting the recovery money lost at play, Act No. 1757 has introduced modifications in the
application of Articles 1798, 1801, and 1305 of the Civil Code.

The first two of these articles relate to gambling contracts, while article 1305 treats of the nullity of
contracts proceeding from a vicious or illicit consideration. Taking all these provisions together, it must
be apparent that the obligation to return money lost at play has a decided affinity to contractual obligation;
and the Court believes that it could, without violence to the doctrines of the civil law, be held that such
obligations is an innominate quasi-contract.

It is however, unnecessary to place the decision on this ground. In the opinion of the Court, the cause of
action stated in the complaint in the court below is based on a contract, express or implied, and is therefore
of such nature that the court had authority to issue the writ of attachment. The application for the writ of
certiorari must therefore be denied and the proceedings dismissed.