Scribd
Upload
85 views1 page

A.O. Brooks Habeas Corpus Ruling

This document is a summary of a Supreme Court case from 1901 regarding a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by A.O. Brooks. The Court found that Brooks had received an absolute discharge from the military and any subsequent contract for employment was as a private citizen, not a soldier. As a private citizen, Brooks could not be compelled by imprisonment or deportation to fulfill the terms of his employment contract with the Army. The Court ordered that Brooks be released from custody.

Uploaded by

wjdwbdiwb
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views1 page

A.O. Brooks Habeas Corpus Ruling

This document is a summary of a Supreme Court case from 1901 regarding a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by A.O. Brooks. The Court found that Brooks had received an absolute discharge from the military and any subsequent contract for employment was as a private citizen, not a soldier. As a private citizen, Brooks could not be compelled by imprisonment or deportation to fulfill the terms of his employment contract with the Army. The Court ordered that Brooks be released from custody.

Uploaded by

wjdwbdiwb
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

9/3/2019 G.R. No.

L-507

Today is Tuesday, September 03, 2019

Custom Search

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence In

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-507 November 5, 1901

In the matter of the petition of A.O. BROOKS for a writ of habeas corpus.

Charles C. Cohn, for petitioner.


Col. S.W. Groesbeck, for respondent.

ARELLANO, C.J.:

It is an established fact that A.O. Brooks had obtained his absolute discharge as a soldier. It is likewise a fact
explicitly stated by the counsel for the Government that the absolute discharge granted contained no condition that
the said Brooks should render services in a civil capacity to the Army as an employee in its offices, and if the latter
had entered into a contract for the rendition of services he did so just as any private person not previously in the
military service might have done.

By the absolute discharge there was dissolved every legal bond that bound him to the Army and thenceforth, since
he no longer enjoyed the privileges of the military, neither could he be held subject to the obligations imposed upon
the military nor subject to anything more than the terms of the contract of employment which he had entered into
with the Army. And inasmuch as a private person who contracts obligations of this sort toward the Army can not, by
any law that we know of, either civil or military, be compelled to fulfill them by imprisonment and deportation from his
place of residence, we deem it wholly improper to sustain such means of compulsion which are not justified either
by the law or by the contract. 1awphi1.net

We decide, therefore, that A.O. Brooks should be placed at liberty, and it is so ordered.

Torres, Willard, Mapa, and Ladd, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1901/nov1901/gr_l-507_1901.html 1/1

You might also like