Chua Ke v. Abeto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originates from a civil dispute concerning a general partnership, Benito Gaerlan & Co., formed by Chua Ke, Cu Peng, and Benito Gaerlan. The petitioners, Chua Ke and Cu Peng, alleged that the respondent, Benito Gaerlan, as manager, failed to perform his duties and misapplied partnership funds. They initiated a lawsuit seeking the dissolution and liquidation of the partnership. As part of this process, they requested that Gaerlan be ordered to transfer P25,000 of partnership funds, which he had deposited in the Bank of Amoy, to Manila and place it at the disposal of the court. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance initially ordered Benito Gaerlan to transfer the P25,000. After Gaerlan failed to comply promptly, the court granted him an extension. Subsequently, Gaerlan was permitted, with the petitioners' consent, to post a P25,000 bond to secure the eventual delivery of the funds. Later, the petitioners sought a peremptory period for Gaerlan to deliver the sum to a receiver and to post an additional bond for accrued interest. The court ordered Gaerlan to deliver the P25,000 with interest. Instead of complying, Gaerlan moved to reduce his bond, arguing his participation in the P25,000 was less than the full amount. The lower court granted this motion, reducing the bond to P10,000. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the current petition for certiorari. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction and abused his discretion by reducing the P25,000 bond to P10,000. They contend that the reduction was unwarranted, despite the judge having access to receiver's reports and an auditor's statements that indicated Gaerlan's assets in the partnership might be substantial. The petitioners seek to have the judge's order reducing the bond annulled.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in reducing the P25,000 bond to P10,000. Whether an error of judgment can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied. The respondent judge did not act in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. An error of judgment, if any, cannot be corrected by certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of excess of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion in reducing the bond: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge had jurisdiction and authority to accept the bond offered by Benito Gaerlan, as this was merely an incident in the principal case. The petitioners themselves had consented to the giving of the bond and had their attorneys examine its terms and conditions. Therefore, if the judge had jurisdiction to fix and accept the bond, he also had jurisdiction to reduce it if justifiable motives existed. The Court noted that the data before the judge, including receiver's reports and an accountant's statement, indicated that Gaerlan's assets in the partnership were substantial, providing a basis for the reduction. The obligation secured by the bond was not exemption from contempt but the delivery of P25,000 to the extent of the petitioners' participation therein. The reduction of the bond to P10,000 did not exempt Gaerlan from paying any amount exceeding P10,000 if his liability was greater. On whether an error of judgment can be corrected by certiorari: The Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that certiorari lies to correct excesses of jurisdiction and manifest abuses of discretion, but not errors of judgment. The Court cited several previous decisions to support this principle. It concluded that even if the respondent judge erred in reducing the bond, such an error was one of judgment and not an act performed without or in excess of jurisdiction, and thus not correctible by certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari lies to correct not only excesses of jurisdiction but also manifest abuses of discretion. An error of judgment, even if erroneous, cannot be corrected by certiorari if the court acted within its jurisdiction.