Ganaway vs Quillen

1922 || Malcolm, J Original action in SC for Habeas Corpus

Quillen is the Warden of Bilibid Prison

action arising from a contract is prohibited by Section 5 of

the Phil Bill of 1902 WRIT GRANTED. GANAWAY should be
released - Note that Co

Facts: George Ganaway prays to be released from Bilibid

Prison because of imprisonment for debt in a civil case
growing out of a contract.-Civil Case: Thomas Casey vs
Ganaway complaint is grounded on a contract and asks for
an accounting-Contract was about the publication of a book
Forbes Memoirs-Casey sued for breach of contract AttyGen: reason for imprisonment is by order of Hon. Harvey
(Judge of CFI of Manila) issued under authority of Chapter 17
of Code of Civil Procedure Arrest of Defendant

SERAFIN VS. LINDAYAG

Facts: Plaintiff failed to pay a simple indebtedness for P1500
Carmelito Mendoza, then municipal secretary and his wife
Corazon Mendoza and therefore an estafa case was filed
against her. Complainant admitted complaint. Now
complainant filed a case against respondent Judge for not
dismissing the case and issuing a warrant of arrest as it falls
on the category of a simple indebtedness, since elements of
estafa are not present. Further she contended that no person
should be imprisoned for non-payment of a loan of a sum of
money. Two months after respondent dismissed plaintiffs
case. (Judge here committed gross ignorance of law. Even if
complainant desisted case was pursued.)

Issue : WON Ganaway should be released

YES Ratio: 1. Imprisonment for debt is absolutely prohibitedNo exception in cases of fraud-Sought to prevent use of State
power to coerce payment of debt, control of creditor over
person of debtor (recovery of debt by restraint of debtors
person 1 )-History: Alabama Supreme Court in Carr vs
Alabama held that a statute making it a misdemeanor for a
person in banking to receive a de-posit of money knowing
himself to be insolvent is void and unconstitutional even if
there is the defense of payment to depositor-debt arising
from action ex contractu-Does not include damages arising
from actions ex delicto because these do not arise from
contracts but are imposed upon the defendant for the wrong
he has done (aka punishment) 2. Code of Civil Procedure is
based on similar California Code BUT latter allows for
imprisonment in cases of fraud. - Therefore Court is not
bound by California Code 3. Similar case of Tan Cong vs
Stewart - Sang Kee (company) sued Tan Cong to recover
P30,000 - Tan Cong was employed by plaintiffs as general
agent for their mercantile establishment - Tan Cong was
requested to turn over funds, personal property, stocks but
he REFUSED - Detention order by the judge but upon petition
for habeas corpus, he was released. This was because
imprisonment in actions for recov- ery of money in a cause of

Issue: Whether or Not there was a violation committed by the

judge when it ordered the imprisonment of plaintiff for nonpayment of debt?
Held: Yes. Since plaintiff did not commit any offense as, his
debt is considered a simple loan granted by her friends to
her. There is no collateral or security because complainant
was an old friend of the spouses who lent the money and
that when they wrote her a letter of demand she promised to
pay them and said that if she failed to keep her promise, they
could get her valuable things at her home. Under the
Constitution she is protected. Judge therefore in admitting
such a "criminal complaint" that was plainly civil in aspects
from the very face of the complaint and the "evidence"
presented, and issuing on the same day the warrant of arrest
upon his utterly baseless finding "that the accused is
probably guilty of the crime charged," respondent grossly
failed to perform his duties properly.