.png)
case digests - Leung Ben vs. P.J. O’Brien
Leung Ben
vs. P.J. O’Brien
G.R. No. L-13602 | April 6, 1918
FACTS
An action was instituted in the Court
of First Instance of the city of Manila Manila
ISSUE:
Was the statutory obligation to
restore money won at gaming an obligation arising from "contract, express
or implied?"
RULING
Yes. Upon general principles,
recognized both in the civil and common law, money lost in gaming and voluntarily
paid by the loser to the winner cannot, in the absence of statute, be recovered
in a civil action. But Act No. 1757 of the Philippine Commission, which defines
and penalizes several forms of gambling, contains numerous provisions
recognizing the right to recover money lost in gambling or in playing certain
games. The original complaint filed in the Court of First Instance was not
clear as to the particular section of Act No. 1757 under which the action was
brought, but was alleged that the money was lost at gambling, banking, and
percentage game in which the defendant was a banker. It must therefore be
assumed that the action was based upon the right of recovery given in section 7
of said Act, which declared that an action may be brought against the banker by
any person losing money at a banking or percentage game. It was observed that
according to the Civil Code obligations are supposed to be derived either from
(1) the law, (2) contracts and quasi-contracts, (3) illicit acts and omission,
or (4) acts in which some sort ob lame or negligence is present. This
enumeration of sources of obligations and the obligation imposed by law are
different types. The obligations which in the Code are indicated as quasi-contracts,
as well as those arising ex lege, are in the common la system, merged into the category of
obligations imposed by law, and all are denominated implied contracts. In the
case under consideration, the duty of O’Brien to refund the money which he won
from the LeungBen at gaming was a duty imposed by statute. It therefore arose ex lege. Furthermore, it was a duty to
return a certain sum which had passed from O’Brien to Leung Ben. By all the
criteria which the common law supplies, this a duty in the nature of debt and
is properly classified as an implied contract. It was well- settled by the
English authorities that money lost in gambling or by lottery, if recoverable
at all, can be recovered by the loser in an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and
received. This meant that in the common law the duty to return money won in
this way was an implied contract, or quasi-contract. The phase in question
should be interpreted in such a way as to include all obligations, whether
arising from consent or ex lege, because that was equivalent to eliminating all distinction
between the first and the fifth paragraphs by practically striking out the
first two lines of paragraph one. The Legislature had deliberately established
this distinction, and while we may be unable to see any reason why it should
have been made, it was our duty to apply and interpret
the law, and we were not authorized under the guise of
interpretation to virtually repeal part of the statute. Nor can it be said that
the relations between the parties litigant constitute a quasi-contract. In the
first place, quasi- contracts are "lawful and purely voluntary acts by which the authors thereof become
obligated in favor of a third person. . . ." The act which gave rise to
the obligation ex lege relied upon by Leung Ben in the court below is illicit an unlawful gambling game. In the
second place, the first paragraph of section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure
does not authorize an attachment in actions arising out of quasi contracts, but only in
actions arising out of contract, express or implied.
0 comments: