Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1933 > September 1933 Decisions > G.R. No. 40054 September 14, 1933 - LA GRANJA, INC. v. FELIX SAMSON, ET AL.

058 Phil 378:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 40054. September 14, 1933.]

LA GRANJA, INC., Petitioner, v. FELIX SAMSON, Judge of First Instance of Cagayan, CHUA BIAN, CHUA YU LEE and CHUA KI, Respondents.

Miguel P. Pio, for Petitioner.

The Respondent Judge in his own behalf.

No appearance for other respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. ATTACHMENT; AFFIDAVIT TO OBTAIN ISSUANCE OF ORDER OF; JUDICIAL DISCRETION. — The mere filing of an affidavit executed in due form is not sufficient to compel a judge to issue an order of attachment, but it is necessary that by such affidavit it be made to appear to the court that there exists sufficient cause for the issuance thereof, the determination of such sufficiency being discretionary on the part of the court.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


In this original petition for mandamus filed by the corporate entity, La Granja, Inc., against Felix Samson, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, Chua Bian, Chua Yu Lee and Chua Ki, the petitioner herein, for the reasons stated in its petition, prays that a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondent judge compelling him to issue a writ of attachment against the properties of the other respondents herein, who are defendants in civil case No. 1888 of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan.

The pertinent facts necessary for the solution of the questions raised in the present case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On July 5, 1932, the petitioner herein, La Granja, Inc., filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, against Chua Bian, Chua Yu Lee and Chua Ki, for the recovery of the sum of P2,418.18 with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, which case was docketed as civil case No. 1888. The plaintiff, at the same time, also prayed for the issuance of an order of attachment against the aforementioned defendants’ property and accompanied said complaint with an affidavit of the manager of the aforesaid petitioner, La Granja, Inc., wherein it was alleged, among other essential things, that the said defendants have disposed or are disposing of their properties in favor of the Asiatic Petroleum Co., with intent to defraud their creditors. The respondent judge, wishing to ascertain or convince himself of the truth of the alleged disposal, required the petitioner herein to present evidence to substantiate its allegation, before granting its petition. Inasmuch as the petitioner refused to comply with the court’s requirement, alleging as its ground that it was not obliged to do so, the respondent judge dismissed said petition for an order of attachment.

The only question to decide in the present case is whether or not the mere filing of an affidavit executed in due form is sufficient to compel a judge to issue an order of attachment.

Section 426 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 426. Granting order of attachment. — A judge or justice of the peace shall grant an order of attachment when it is made to appear to the judge or justice of the peace by the affidavit of the plaintiff, or of some other person who knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exists, and that the case is one of those mentioned in section four hundred and twenty-four, and that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that the amount due to the plaintiff above all legal set-offs or counterclaims is as much as the sum for which the order is granted."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be seen that the legal provision just cited orders the granting of a writ of attachment when it has been made to appear by affidavit that the facts mentioned by law as sufficient to warrant the issuance thereof, exist. Although the law requires nothing more than the affidavit as a means of establishing the existence of such facts, nevertheless, such affidavit must be sufficient to convince the court of their existence, the court being justified in rejecting the affidavit if it does not serve this purpose and in denying the petition for an order of attachment. The affidavit filed by the petitioner, La Granja, Inc., must not have satisfied the respondent judge inasmuch as he desired to ascertain or convince himself of the truth of the facts alleged therein by requiring evidence to substantiate them. The sufficiency or insufficiency of an affidavit depends upon the amount of credit given it by the judge, and its acceptance or rejection, upon his sound discretion.

Hence, the respondent judge, in requiring the presentation of evidence to establish the truth of the allegation of the affidavit that the defendants had disposed or were disposing of their property to defraud their creditors, has done nothing more than exercise his sound discretion in determining the sufficiency of the affidavit.

In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that the mere filing of an affidavit executed in due form is not sufficient to compel a judge to issue an order of attachment, but it is necessary that by such affidavit it be made to appear to the court that there exists sufficient cause for the issuance thereof, the determination of such sufficiency being discretionary on the part of the court.

Wherefore, the petition for a writ of mandamus is hereby denied and the same is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Malcolm, Abad Santos, Hull and Imperial, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1933 Jurisprudence                 

  • C. E. PIATT v. PERFECTO ABORDO September 1, 1933 - 058 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 38561 September 5, 1933 - FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ v. PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC.

    058 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 37850 September 6, 1933 - MAN SHUNG LOONG CO., ET AL. v. MELECIO FABROS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 40235 September 6, 1933 - MARIANO CU UNJIENG, ET AL. v. JUAN POSADAS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 360

  • JOSE R. PAÑGANIBAN v. ELIAS BORROMEO September 9, 1933 - 058 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 40133 September 12, 1933 - ROBERT B. VAN STAVERN v. PEDRO MA. SISON, ET AL.

    058 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 39925 September 14, 1933 - VALENTIN MONTOJO v. CEFERINO HILARIO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 39929 September 14, 1933 - AGAPITO RAMOS v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 40054 September 14, 1933 - LA GRANJA, INC. v. FELIX SAMSON, ET AL.

    058 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 38190 September 15, 1933 - MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC. v. FRANCISCO JAVIER

    058 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 38286 September 15, 1933 - MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC. v. FAUSTO BARREDO

    058 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 38621 September 15, 1933 - EULALIO POSAS v. TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    058 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 38715 September 15, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN NOYNAY, ET AL.

    058 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 38814 September 15, 1933 - METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    058 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 39453 September 15, 1933 - METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    058 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. 37265 September 18, 1933 - CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. CHAN QUAN PANG, ET AL.

    058 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 38614 September 18, 1933 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    058 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 39955 September 18, 1933 - ANGELES TAPIA VIUDA DE JONES v. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

    058 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 37046 September 19, 1933 - IÑIGO S. DAZA v. FELISA TOMACRUZ, ET AL.

    058 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 37310 September 19, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO DAZO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 37386 September 19, 1933 - ANDRES JAYME v. BUALAN

    058 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 38435 September 19, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO ORONGAN, ET AL.

    058 Phil 426

  • G.R. Nos. 39609 & 39643-39649 September 20, 1933 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CATALINO BALAGTAS

    058 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 36602 September 22, 1933 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. PAZ repuLOPEZ MANZANO VIUDA DE PARDO DE TAVERA

    058 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 37206 September 22, 1933 - CU UNJIENG E HIJOS v. MABALACAT SUGAR COMPANY, ET AL.

    058 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 37874 September 22, 1933 - BRAULIO BALAGTAS ET AL. v. CIRIACA ARGUELLES

    058 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. 38050 September 22, 1933 - TIBURCIA MANAHAN v. ENGRACIA MANAHAN

    058 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. 39260 September 23, 1933 - JOSE P. BANZON, ET AL. v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    058 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 40368 September 23, 1933 - ANACLETO PIIT v. VICENTE B. DE LARA

    058 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 36911 September 25, 1933 - AURELIA CONTUAN v. FORTUNATA RAMIREZ

    058 Phil 458

  • G.R. No. 38884 September 26, 1933 - PACIFICO ABAD ET AL. v. JUAN N. EVANGELISTA

    058 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 37078 September 27, 1933 - ENRIQUE MONSERRAT v. CARLOS G. CERON, ET AL.

    058 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 37706 September 27, 1933 - CU UNJIENG E HIJOS v. L. P. MITCHELL

    058 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 38284 September 27, 1933 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG, ET AL. v. LEONARD S. GODDARD, ET AL.

    058 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 38316 September 27, 1933 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG, ET AL. v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    058 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 39085 September 27, 1933 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO YABUT

    058 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 39562 September 27, 1933 - JUAN L. ORBETA v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

    058 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 37125 September 30, 1933 - MARIA ARRIETE v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, ET AL.

    058 Phil 507