Case Digest (G.R. No. 20479)
Facts:
Yu Cong Eng et al. v. W. Trinidad, Collector of Internal Revenue, et al., G.R. No. L-20479, February 06, 1925, the Supreme Court, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners are Yu Cong Eng and other Chinese merchants (suing on their own behalf and purportedly for some 12,000 similarly situated Chinese merchants); the respondents are W. Trinidad, Collector of Internal Revenue, the City Fiscal of Manila, and Judge Pedro Concepcion of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Petitioners sought prohibition and injunction attacking the constitutionality of Act No. 2972 (the "Chinese Bookkeeping Law").
Act No. 2972 (approved February 21, 1921; effective date later postponed and ultimately set for January 1, 1923 by Act No. 2998) made it unlawful for persons engaged in commerce, industry, or profit-making activities in the Philippine Islands to keep account books in any language other than English, Spanish, or a local dialect, and prescribed fines and imprisonment for violation. After reported executive and diplomatic efforts to secure repeal or modification failed, agents of the Bureau of Internal Revenue inspected the books of petitioner Yu Cong Eng on March 2, 1923, seized them, and the city fiscal filed a criminal information on March 7, 1923 (Criminal Case No. 25551, Court of First Instance, Manila) for keeping books only in Chinese; an arrest warrant issued and Yu was arrested.
Petitioners filed an original petition in prohibition and for injunction in the Supreme Court challenging Act No. 2972 as unconstitutional (invoking Fourteenth Amendment principles and the Jones Law guarantees of equal protection and due process, and treaty rights of Chinese). Respondents demurred, raising both the substantive constitutional question and the preliminary objection that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain original proceedings at that stage. The Court overruled the demurrer, required an answer, and permitted extensive evidence (close to a thousand pages) to be taken; the parties adduced testimony and documents regarding the commercial role of Chinese merchants, available accountants/translators, revenue losses from alleged under-declarations, legislative history and executive reactions, and comparative law.
Following full consideration and oral argument, the Court addressed first the jurisdictional question and then the merits — whether Act No. 2972 was within the legislature’s power (police and taxation) and consistent with due process and equal protection — and whether the statute could be given a construc...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court properly exercise original jurisdiction in prohibition and decide the constitutionality of Act No. 2972 at this stage?
- Is Act No. 2972 void as unconstitutional on grounds of equal protection, due process, discrimination, or treaty obligations?
- If not void, how should Act No. 2972 be construed so as to reconcile legislative purpo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)