[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
123 views2 pages

Leung Ben v. O'Brien

Leung Ben sued the judges of the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking a writ of certiorari to challenge an attachment issued in a case where P.J. O'Brien sued Leung Ben to recover $15,000 allegedly lost in gambling. The issue was whether the statutory obligation to return money won in gaming arises from an express or implied contract allowing attachment. The Court ruled that the obligation does have similarities to a contractual obligation and can be viewed as a quasi-contract, but it is unnecessary to determine that specifically. The Court found that the cause of action in the underlying case was based on an express or implied contract, allowing the attachment. Therefore, the application for the writ of certiorari was denied.

Uploaded by

Wendell Mirabel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views2 pages

Leung Ben v. O'Brien

Leung Ben sued the judges of the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking a writ of certiorari to challenge an attachment issued in a case where P.J. O'Brien sued Leung Ben to recover $15,000 allegedly lost in gambling. The issue was whether the statutory obligation to return money won in gaming arises from an express or implied contract allowing attachment. The Court ruled that the obligation does have similarities to a contractual obligation and can be viewed as a quasi-contract, but it is unnecessary to determine that specifically. The Court found that the cause of action in the underlying case was based on an express or implied contract, allowing the attachment. Therefore, the application for the writ of certiorari was denied.

Uploaded by

Wendell Mirabel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE NO.

1
Leung Ben VS. P. J. O’Brien, James A. Ostrand and Geo R. Harvey, Judges of
First Instance of the City of Manila

FACTS:
An action was instituted in the CFI 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:
Whether or not the statutory obligation to restore money won at gaming is an
obligation arising from contract, express or implied.

RULING:
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.

You might also like