Facts:

The case involves K. D. Law as the plaintiff and appellant, and Joaquin Natividad, the Collector of Customs for the Port of Cebu, as the defendant and appellee. The events leading to this case began on December 8, 1908, when the Insular Collector of Customs in Manila issued Chinese Immigration Circular No. 218, which prohibited individuals who were not citizens of the Philippine Islands or the United States from acting as immigration brokers. This circular was issued under the authority of paragraph 5, section 19 of Act No. 355, which governed the licensing of customs immigration brokerage. On February 23, 1909, the Collector of Customs at the Port of Cebu issued General Order No. 3, which allowed non-citizens to apply for a license as immigration brokers, contradicting the earlier circular. K. D. Law applied for a license within the stipulated time and successfully passed the examination to become an immigration broker, receiving his license on June 1, 1909. He operated as a...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellant: K. D. Law, a citizen of the Republic of China and a resident of Cebu, Philippines.
   • Defendant and Appellee: Joaquin Natividad, the Collector of Customs for the Port of Cebu.

2. Background of the Case:

   • The case involves a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Collector of Customs to issue a license to K. D. Law as an immigration broker at the Port of Cebu.

3. Key Stipulated Facts:

   • On December 8, 1908, the Insular Collector of Customs issued Chinese Immigration Circular No. 218, which prohibited non-citizens of the Philippines or the United States from acting as immigration brokers.
   • On February 23, 1909, the Collector of Customs at Cebu issued General Order No. 3, allowing non-citizens to apply for immigration broker licenses, contrary to Circular No. 218.
   • K. D. Law applied for and was granted an immigration broker license in 1909, which he held until 1918 when it was canceled because he was not a citizen of the Philippines or the U.S.
   • In 1923, Law was reinstated as an immigration broker but was denied a license renewal in 1924 based on the same citizenship issue.
   • Law argued that he was of good moral character, complied with all laws, and had not committed any acts justifying the cancellation of his license.

4. Legal Framework:

   • The case revolves around the interpretation of Act No. 355 and the Administrative Code, particularly whether the Insular Collector of Customs has authority over immigration brokers and whether the Collector of Customs at Cebu must follow the Insular Collector’s instructions.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Authority of the Insular Collector of Customs:

   • Under Section 550 and Section 1139 of the Administrative Code, the Insular Collector of Customs has supervisory control over customs and immigration matters, including the issuance of licenses.
   • The Collector of Customs at Cebu is subordinate to the Insular Collector and must follow his instructions.

2. Discretionary Nature of Licensing:

   • The issuance of licenses to immigration brokers is a discretionary act by the customs authorities.
   • Mandamus cannot be used to compel a discretionary act, as it is only applicable to ministerial duties.

3. Applicability of Circular No. 218:

   • Paragraph XVI of Circular No. 218 was issued under the authority of Act No. 355 and remains valid.
   • The prohibition against non-citizens acting as immigration brokers is enforceable, and General Order No. 3 cannot override this prohibition.