Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14859)
Facts:
Macario King, et al., Petitioners-Appellees, vs. Pedro S. Hernaez, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, G.R. No. L-14859, March 31, 1962, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.On January 1, 1957, Macario King, a naturalized Filipino, acquired the retail grocery business known as "Import Meat and Produce" previously owned by Philippine Cold Stores, Inc. The establishment employed 15 persons, of whom 12 were Filipinos and three were Chinese who had been employed by the prior owner — two as salesmen and one as purchaser. About three weeks after the acquisition King sought presidential permission, through the Secretary of Commerce and Industry, to retain the three Chinese employees pursuant to Section 2-A of Commonwealth Act No. 108 (as amended by Republic Act No. 134). The Secretary recommended disapproval on the ground that aliens may not be appointed to operate or administer a retail business under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1180 (the Retail Trade Law), and the President approved the recommendation.
After the President's denial, King and the three Chinese employees filed a petition for declaratory relief, injunction, and mandamus on August 25, 1958 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, alleging uncertainty as to their rights under Republic Act No. 1180 and Commonwealth Act No. 108, as amended. The CFI issued an ex parte preliminary injunction upon bond. Respondents (the Secretary of Commerce and Industry and the Executive Secretary) answered, moved to dismiss and later defended at trial, arguing among other things that the petition stated no cause of action because the employment violated both the Retail Trade Law and the Anti‑Dummy Law, and that the injunction requisites were not met.
The CFI denied respondents' motion to dismiss, tried the case, and rendered judgment: it held that King could employ non‑citizens in positions that did not involve participation in management, operation, administration or control; that the three Chinese petitioners could continue as purchaser and salesmen; and that the preliminary injunction was made final, ordering respondents to desist from interfering. Respondents appealed to the Supreme Court (by appeal to this Court), c...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for declaratory relief barred because petitioners had already breached the Anti‑Dummy Law when they filed the action?
- Does Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1180, read with Section 2‑A of Commonwealth Act No. 108 (as amended by R.A. No. 134), prohibit the employment of aliens in non‑control positions (e.g., salesmen, purchaser) in a Filipino‑owned retail establishment?
- Does such a prohibition violate constitutional rights of citizens (e.g., the right t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)