University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
Case Name GEORGE H. GANAWAY, petitioner, vs. J. W. QUILLEN, Warden of Bilibid Prison, respondent.
Topic Non-imprisonment for debt and involuntary servitude
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 18619 | February 20, 1922
Ponente MALCOLM, J.
This is a petition for habeas corpus for Ganaway asking that he be released from prison. He is
Case Summary
imprisoned because of a debt arising from a contract.
Imprisonment for the non-payment of debt is expressly prohibited in Sec 5 of the Philippine Bill of
1902. Petitioner is ordered to be released. Like in the US, there is a prohibition in the Philippine Bill
of 1902 which states that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt.”
Doctrine
Reason for this prohibition in the US is that the people sought to prevent the use of the power of the
State to coerce the payment of debts. The control of the creditor over the debtor was abolished by
humane statutory and constitutional provisions.
RELEVANT FACTS
This is a petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner Ganaway asks that he be released from Bilibid Prison. The reason for his
imprisonment is a debt arising from a contract. The respondent Quillen is the warden of Bilibid Prison
The civil case involving the debt mentioned the publication of a book named “Forbes’ Memoirs” and mentions the
phrase “this contract”. It also stated that it was the petitioner Ganaway who breached the contract.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N a person can be NO.
imprisoned because of This is expressly prohibited in Sec 5 of the Philippine Bill of 1902. Petitioner is ordered to
a debt arising from a be released.
contract. Like in the US, there is a prohibition in the Philippine Bill of 1902 which states that “no
person shall be imprisoned for debt.”
Reason for this prohibition in the US is that the people sought to prevent the use of the
power of the State to coerce the payment of debts. The control of the creditor over the
debtor was abolished by humane statutory and constitutional provisions.
The “debt” intended to be covered by the provision covers debt arising from actions ex
contractu.
The “debt” in the provision does not include damages arising in actions ex delicto. This is
because in ex delicto, the damages do not arise from any contract entered into between the
parties but are imposed upon the defendant for the wrong he has done and are considered
as a punishment.
The “debt” also doesn’t include fines and penalties imposed by the courts in criminal
proceedings as punishment for crime.
Court compared this to the case of the two chinamen under the firm name of Sang Kee who
filed a case against their employee Tan Cong (Tan Cong v. M. L. Stewart, Acting Director Of
Prisons) previously decided by the SC. In this case, it was held that the provisions of Section
5 of the Philippine Bill of 1902 expressly prohibited the imprisonment of citizens of the
Philippines in actions for the recovery of money arising from a contract.
Also, it was mentioned in the case of Tan Cong that the provision applies to all cases of
debt whether they involve fraud or not.
University of the Philippines College of Law
KJRPM D2022
RULING
This court has, heretofore, in a minute order, directed the discharge from imprisonment of the petitioner, and this
decision is in explanation thereof. The minute order will, therefore, stand as the authoritative adjudication of the court.
Costs de officio. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
NOTES
