G.R. No.

L-13602            
April 6, 1918
LEUNG BEN, plaintiff,
vs.
P. J. O'BRIEN, JAMES A OSTRAND and GEO. R. HARVEY, judges of First Instance
of city of Manila, defendants.

FACTS:
An action was instituted in the Court of First instance of the City of Manila by the
defendant to recover the sum of P 15,000.00 to have been lost by plaintiff to P.J. Obrien
in a series of gambling, banking and percentage games conducted during two or three
months prior to the institution of the suit. In his verified complaint, P.J. Obrien asked for
an attachment against the property of plaintiff on the ground that the latter was about to
depart from the Philippines with the intent to defraud his creditors. This attachment was
issued. The sheriff attached the sum of P 15,000.00 which had been deposited by the
defendant, O’ brien with the International Banking Corporation. Leung filed a motion to
quash the attachment which was dismissed by the court. Hence this petition.

Issue:
Whether the statutory obligation to restore the money won at gaming an obligation
arising from contract, express or implied.

Ruling:
It is an implied contract. The general principle as the basis of obligation states that, “no
one shall be allowed to enrich himself unduly at the expense of another”

In this case, the duty of the defendant to refund the money which he won from the
plaintiff at gaming is a duty imposed by the statute and therefore arises ex lege. By all
the criteria which the common law supplies, this is a duty in the nature of debt and is
classified as an implied contract. In the common law, the duty to return the money won
in this way is an implied contract or quasi contract. The cause of action stated in the
complaint is based on a contract. Hence, the court had the authority to issue writ of
attachment.