G.R. No. 157171 - Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners Simeon Cabanero and Luis Mangornong filed a petition for a writ of prohibition.
Respondents include Ramon Torres (Secretary of Labor), Faustino Aguilar (Under Secretary of Labor), Jose Flagueras (Inspector General of Labor) and the Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association represented by its managing agents, William H. Babbitt and Montague Lord.

The Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association had for many years been licensed by the Government to recruit, contract, and embark laborers for the Territory of Hawaii.
On February 25, 1935, the Association submitted an application for the renewal of its recruitment license.

The petitioners challenged the renewal on the ground that the Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association lacked juridical personality.
Their argument centered on the Association being neither incorporated nor duly licensed to do business in the Philippines as required by the Corporation Law.

In response, the Secretary of Labor issued a provisional license authorizing the Association to recruit, contract, and embark laborers from selected provinces (Manila, Cebu, Ilocos Norte, and Ilocos Sur).
The provisional license was conditioned to expire ipso facto ninety (90) days from March 8, 1935, pending the Association’s compliance with the statutory requirement to register as a foreign corporation, company, or association in the Bureau of Commerce.

The Secretary of Labor, supported by the Solicitor-General’s memorandum, maintained that the provisional license was a proper exercise of discretion.
He explained that granting only a temporary license ensured sufficient time for the Association to acquire the necessary juridical personality while continuing to protect the rights of emigrant laborers.
The official stance was that no new license would be issued unless the Association complied with the mandated registration (thereby preemptively notifying it that failure to comply would forestall future licensing).

The writ is intended to prohibit an act that is about to take place, not to remedy or undo acts already accomplished.
The decision explains that, as established under Section 226 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reiterated in U.S. jurisprudence (e.g., U. S. vs. Hoffman), its purpose is solely preventative.

The petition alleged that certain respondents threatened to issue or renew the license improperly once the provisional license expired.
However, respondents clarified that the provisional license clearly indicated no renewal would be granted without proper registration, effectively negating the alleged threat.
Consequently, the factual record demonstrated that the Secretary of Labor’s action was both carefully circumscribed and in line with legal requirements.

Whether the issuance of the provisional license by the Secretary of Labor was a proper exercise of administrative discretion.
Whether conditionally authorizing the Association to recruit laborers pending registration violates any statutory provision or established administrative procedure.

Whether a writ of prohibition is the proper remedy to challenge the provisional license given that such writ is preventative in nature and not suitable for undoing acts already executed.
Whether the petitioners’ allegations of an imminent renewal of the license, despite lacking juridical personality, warrant the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

Whether the legal requirement for foreign associations to register in the Philippines as a condition for licensing was correctly applied by the Secretary of Labor.
How the Court’s interpretation of the necessity for juridical personality interacts with the prior practice of annual renewals of the license.