Ganaway vs.

Quillen

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

Atty-Gen: reason for imprisonment is by ordero f Hon. Harvey (Judge of CFI of Manila) issued under authority of Chapter 17 of Code of Civil
Procedure Arrest of Defendant

Issue: WON Ganaway should be released

Held: YES

Ratio: 1.Imprisonment for debt is absolutely prohibited

-No 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 person1)
-History: Alabama Supreme Court in Carr vs Alabama held that a statute making it a misdemeanor for a person in banking to receive a deposit 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 recovery of
money in a cause of action arising from a contract is prohibited by Section 5 of the Phil Bill of 1902.

WRIT GRANTED. GANAWAY should be released-Note that Court made it a point to declare that this decision does not make Chapter 17
invalid. This is only limited to the facts of the present case.