Case Digest (G.R. No. 16779)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 16779)
Facts:
Lee Yick Hon, G.R. No. L-16779. March 30, 1921, the Supreme Court En Banc, Street, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner-appellee Lee Yick Hon was a Chinese national detained for deportation at the Port of Manila; respondent-appellant the Insular Collector of Customs (referred to in the record as Vicente Aldanese in the trial court) ordered his deportation after a Special Board of Inquiry and the Collector's own decision affirmed exclusion.On July 23, 1920, counsel for Lee filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Sala IV), presided over by Judge Pedro Concepcion. Judge Concepcion issued and caused to be served on the Insular Collector a citation to appear and show cause why the peremptory writ of habeas corpus should not issue; the citation was served at about 11 a.m. that day. Arrangements for deportation had already been made for a vessel leaving about noon, and Lee was in fact placed aboard and deported to Hongkong within two or three hours after service.
Contempt proceedings followed in the Court of First Instance, which found the Insular Collector guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of P50. The Collector appealed the contempt judgment to the Supreme Court. In the meantime the Attorney-General filed an answer on behalf of the Collector on July 30, 1920, explaining the administrative proceedings leading to deportation. The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and rendered the present decision.
The record includes a dissenting opinion by Malcolm, J., joined by Araullo, J., which would have affirmed the contempt conviction as constructive contempt.
Issues:
- May the Insular Collector of Customs be punished for contempt for deporting Lee Yick Hon after being served with a citation to show cause in a pending habeas corpus application?
- Does a preliminary citation to show cause in habeas corpus proceedings constitute a lawful writ, order, or process whose disobedience may be punished as contempt absent an explicit restraining clause or peremptory writ?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)