LA GRANJA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. FELIX SAMSON, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAGAYAN, CHUA BIAN, CHUA YU LEE AND CHUA KI, RESPONDENTS.

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:

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:

“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.”

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.