Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31711 September 30, 1971
ANTONIO J. ILLEGAS !" M!#or o$ t%e C&t# o$ M!'&(! !')
MANUEL *. LAPI*, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
A+ELAR*O SU+I*O !" C&,&( Ser,&-e Comm&""&o'er, E*UAR*O
.. ROMUAL*E. !" Se-ret!r# o$ /&'!'-e, JOSE R. GLORIA !"
A-t&'0 A""t. C&t# Tre!"1rer o$ M!'&(!, !') 2ON. CONRA*O M.
AS3UE. !" Pre"&)&'0 J1)0e o$ +r!'-% , Co1rt o$ /&r"t
I'"t!'-e o$ M!'&(!, respondents-appellees.
Gregorio A. Ejercito and Restituto R. Villanueva for petitioners-
appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio Acting Assistant
Solicitor General !ector ". Fule and Solicitor Santiago #. $apunan
for respondents-appellees.

/ERNAN*O, J.:
Petitioner Antonio J. Villeas, in this appeal fro! a decision of the
lo"er court dis!issin a special civil action for prohibition, %uo
&arranto and 'anda'us "ould la# clai! as the Ma#or of the Cit# of
Manila to the po"er of appoint!ent of the Assistant Cit# $reasurer to
"hich office the other petitioner, Manuel %. &apid, "as b# hi! na!ed
even if under its Charter
1
such a preroative is e'pressl# vested in the President of the
Philippines.
4
(e "ould invo)e a provision in the %ecentrali*ation Act to the effect that all +other
e!plo#ees, e'cept teachers, paid out of provincial, cit# or !unicipal eneral funds, and other local funds
shall, sub,ect to civil service la", rules and reulations, be appointed b# the provincial overnor, cit# or
!unicipal !a#or upon reco!!endation of the office head concerned.+
3
(e is not deterred b# the rather
eneral and in e'plicit character of such statutor# lanuae as he contends for a construction rather
enerous, if not latitudinarian, in scope purportedl# in consonance "ith the avo"ed purpose of the Act of
enlarin boundaries of local autono!#. Respondent Abelardo -ubido, "ho "as proceeded aainst as
Co!!issioner of the Civil -ervice,
5
ta)es a stand dia!etricall# opposite not onl# because there is no
leal basis for such a clai! in the liht of "hat is e'pressl# ordained in the Cit# Charter but also because
such an interpretation of the provision related upon "ould disreard the "ell-settled doctrine that i!plied
repeals are not favored. $he lo"er court, in a "ell-"ritten decision b# the (onorable Conrado M.
Vas.ue*, accepted such a vie". After a careful stud# of the !atter, "e cannot discern an# error. /e
affir!.
$he facts as found b# the lo"er court follo"s0 +1n a letter dated June 2,
3456, respondent Eduardo 7. Ro!ualde*, -ecretar# of 8inance,
authori*ed respondent Jose R. 9loria of the :ffice of the Cit#
$reasurer of Manila to assu!e the duties of Assistant Cit# $reasurer
effective June 3, 3456, vice 8elino 8ine*a "ho retired fro! the
overn!ent service on Ma# 23, 3456. 1n ad!inistrative :rder No. ;<,
series of 3456, dated June 3=, 3456, petitioner Antonio J. Villeas,
Ma#or of the Cit# of Manila, directed respondent 9loria to desist and
refrain fro! e'ercisin the duties and functions of the Assistant Cit#
$reasurer,> on the round that respondent Ro!ualde* +is not
e!po"ered to !a)e such desination.+ :n Januar# 3, 3454, Ma#or
Villeas, appointed petitioner Manuel %. &apid, chief of the cash
division of the :ffice of the Cit# $reasurer of Manila, as Assistant Cit#
$reasurer. 1n a 3st endorse!ent dated 8ebruar# 3;, 3454, respondent
Abelardo -ubido, Co!!issioner of Civil -ervice disapproved the
appoint!ent of &apid, basin his action, on an opinion of the
-ecretar# of Justice dated -epte!ber 34, 3456 to the effect that the
appoint!ent of Assistant Provincial $reasurers is still overned b#
-ection ?<66 @AA of the Revised Ad!inistrative Code, and not b#
-ection ; of the %ecentrali*ation &a", Republic Act No. B36B.+
6
$hereafter on 8ebruar# ?B, 3454, to .uote ane" fro! the appealed
decision0 +Ma#or Villeas and Manuel %. &apid filed the instant petition
for prohibition, %uo &arranto and 'anda'us, "ith application for "rit
of preli!inar# in,unction, pra#in that ,ud!ent be rendered to declare
illeal and void a( initio the authori*ation iven b# respondent
Ro!ualde* to respondent 9loria to assu!e the duties of assistant cit#
treasurer of Manila, and that a "rit of !anda!us be issued to
respondent Co!!issioner of Civil -ervice -ubido co!!andin hi! to
approve the appoint!ent of petitioner &apid to the said office in
accordance "ith the civil -ervice Rules.+
7
1t "as not until the filin of the petition that
respondent Jose R. 9loria "as no!inated b# the President of the Philippines to the position of Assistant
Cit# treasurer of Manila and thereafter dul# confir!ed. After the case "as sub!itted for ,ud!ent on the
pleadins and the docu!entar# e'hibits stipulated b# the parties, the court rendered its decision on
Auust ;, 3454 dis!issin the petition. (ence this appeal b# "a# of certiorari.
/ith this $ribunal, as "ith the court belo", the decisive .uestion is the
applicable la". $he Charter of the Cit# of Manila, enacted in 34;4, in
e'press ter!s did confer on the President of the Philippines, "ith the
consent of the Co!!ission on Appoint!ents, the po"er to appoint the
Assistant Cit# $reasurer.
7
:n the other hand, support for the petition is pre!ised on the
e'pansive interpretation that "ould be accorded the eneral provisions found in the %ecentrali*ation Act
of 345= to the effect that it is a cit# !a#or "ho has the po"er to appoint all other e!plo#ees paid out of
cit# or local funds sub,ect to civil service la", rules and reulations.
8
1t is understandable "h# the choice for the lo"er court "as not difficult
to !a)e. /hat has been so clearl# ordained in the Charter is
controllin. 1t survives in the face of the assertion that the additional
po"er ranted local officials to appoint e!plo#ees paid out of local
funds "ould suffice to transfer such authorit# to petitioner Ma#or. A
perusal of the "ords of the statute, even if far fro! searchin "ould
not ,ustif# such an interpretation. $his is all !ore evident, considerin
the fidelit# !anifested b# this Court to the doctrine that loo)s "ith less
than favor on i!plied appeals. $he decision no" on appeal, to repeat,
!ust be affir!ed.
3. $he inherent "ea)ness of the contention of petitioner Ma#or that
"ould sei*e upon the vestin of the appointin po"er of all other
+e!plo#ees+ e'cept teachers paid out of local funds to ,ustif# his
choice of petitioner Manuel %. &apid as Assistant Cit# $reasurer is
readil# disclosed. $he Revised Ad!inistrative Code distinuishes one
in that cateor# fro! an +officer+ to desinate those +"hose duties, not
bein of a clerical or !anual nature, !a# be considered to involve the
e'ercise of discretion in the perfor!ance of the function of
overn!ent, "hether such duties are precisel# defined b# la" or
not.+
9
Clearl#, the Assistant and Cit# $reasurer is an officer, not an e!plo#ee. $hen, too, -ection ; of
the %ecentrali*ation Act relied upon b# petitioner Cit# Ma#or specificall# enu!erates, the officials and
their assistants "ho! he can appoint, specificall# e'cludin therefro! cit# treasurers.
10
$he e'pansive
interpretation contended for is thus un"arranted.
Nor is the case strenthened for petitioner Cit# Ma#or b# the
invocation of )ineda v. "laudio.
11
1t is not to be denied that in the opinion of the Court,
penned b# Justice Castro, undue interference "ith the po"er and preroatives of a local e'ecutive is
souht to be avoided, considerin his pri!ar# responsibilit# for efficient overn!ental ad!inistration.
/hat is not to be inored thouh is that such a principle "as announced in connection "ith the
appoint!ent of a depart!ent head, the chief of police, "ho necessaril# !ust en,o# the fullest confidence
of the local e'ecutive, one !oreover "hose appoint!ent is e'pressl# vested in the cit# !a#or. $he
principle therein announced does not e'tend as far as the choice of an assistant cit# treasurer "hose
functions do not re.uire that !uch deree of confidence, not to !ention the specific rant of such
authorit# to the President. E.uall# unavailin then is Villegas v. Su(ido,
14
"here this Court, throuh the
then Justice Capistrano, reconi*ed that the choice of "ho the cit# leal officer should be rests solel# on
the cit# !a#or, such an office re.uirin as it does the hihest deree of confidence. 1t bears repeatin that
the situation in the case before us is of a different cateor#. $he decision appealed fro!, then, is not to be
i!puned as a failure to abide b# controllin pronounce!ents of this $ribunal.
?. Much less is reversal of the lo"er court decision ,ustified on the
plea that the aforesaid provision in the %ecentrali*ation Act had the
effect of repealin "hat is specificall# ordained in the cit# charter. 1t
has been the constant holdin of this Court that repeals b# duplication
are not favored and "ill not be so declared unless it be !anifest that
the leislature so intended. -uch a doctrine oes as far bac) as
Cnited -tates v. Re#es, a 34<6 decision.
13
1t is necessar# then before such a repeal
is dee!ed to e'ist that it be sho"n that the statutes or statutor# provisions deal "ith the sa!e sub,ect
!atter and that the latter be inconsistent "ith the for!er.
15
$here !ust be a sho"in of repunanc# clear
and convincin in character. $he lanuae used in the latter statute !ust be such as to render it
irreconcilable "ith "hat had been for!erl# enacted. An inconsistenc# that falls short of that standard does
not suffice. /hat is needed is a !anifest indication of the leislative purpose to repeal.
16
More specificall#, a subse.uent statute, eneral in character as to its
ter!s and application, is not to be construed as repealin a special or
specific enact!ent, unless the leislative purpose to do so is !anifest.
$his is so even if the provisions of the latter are sufficientl#
co!prehensive to include "hat "as set forth in the special act. $his
principle has li)e"ise been consistentl# applied in decisions of this
Court fro! #anila Railroad "o. v. Raffert*,
17
decided as far bac) as 3434. A citation
fro! an opinion of Justice $uason is illu!inatin. $hus0 +8ro! another anle the presu!ption aainst
repeal is stroner. A special la" is not rearded as havin been a!ended or repealed b# a eneral la"
unless the intent to repeal or alter is !anifest. Generalia speciali(us non derogant. And this is true
althouh the ter!s of the eneral act are broad enouh to include the !atter in the special statute. ... At
an# rate, in the event har!on# bet"een provisions of this t#pe in the sa!e la" or in t"o la"s is
i!possible, the specific provision controls unless the statute, considered in its entiret#, indicates a
contrar# intention upon the part of the leislature. ... A eneral la" is one "hich e!braces a class of
sub,ects or places and does not o!it an# sub,ect or place naturall# belonin to such class "hile a
special act is one "hich relates to particular persons or thins of a class.
17


THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 108725-26. September 25, 1998]
PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NES "#$ F%R&ERS 'OOPER%T!(E
&%R)ET!NG %SSO'!%T!ON *F%'O&%+, S"# ,o-e, O../$e#t"0
&/#$oro,petitioners, vs. TE ON. E&!L!O L. LE%'ON, ,R.,
Pre-/$/#1 ,2$1e, RT', 3r"#.4 56, 5t4 ,2$/./"0 Re1/o#, S"# ,o-e,
O../$e#t"0 &/#$oro,respondents.
6 E ' ! S ! O N
P7R!S!&%, J.8
The People of the Philippines, represented by the Provincial Prosecutor of Occidental
Mindoro, and the private coplainant, !arers" #ooperative Mar$etin% &ssociation
'!&#OM&(, brou%ht this special civil action for certiorari and andaus, to annul the orders,
dated )anuary *+ and !ebruary ,, *--., respectively, of Presidin% )ud%e /ilio 01 0eachon, )r1
of the Re%ional Trial #ourt, 2ranch ,3, San )ose, Occidental Mindoro, 4ho disissed #riinal
#ase Nos1 R56+77 and R56+6+, and denied herein petitioners" otion for
reconsideration1 Petitioners further pray that respondent )ud%e be ordered to proceed 4ith the
trial of said cases1
The antecedent facts that atter are, as follo4s8
On &u%ust 7, *--9, pursuant to the Resolution of the Municipal Trial #ourt of San
)ose, Occidental Mindoro, the Provincial Prosecutor of Occidental Mindoro filed t4o
separate inforations for violation of P1 D1 776, other4ise $no4n as the &nti5
S:uattin% 0a4, a%ainst Noli Hablo, /dundo Mapindan and Die%o /scala, doc$eted
as #riinal #ase Nos1 R56+77 and R56+6+, before the Re%ional Trial #ourt of
Occidental Mindoro presided over by respondent ;ud%e1
The cases proceeded to trial1 &fter presentin% its evidence, the prosecution rested the
cases, sendin% in a 4ritten offer of evidence on Noveber *,, *--*1
On &u%ust *+, *--6, alost a year after the prosecution had rested, the respondent
)ud%e issued an Order disissin% the said cases motu proprio on the %round of <lac$
of ;urisdiction1=
!ro the aforesaid order of disissal, petitioners appealed to this #ourt via a Petition
for #ertiorari, Prohibition and Mandaus, 4hich 4as referred to the #ourt of &ppeals
for proper disposition1
On Deceber 6,, *--6, the *6th Division of the #ourt of &ppeals cae out 4ith a decision
reversin% the appealed Order of disissal, orderin% continuation of trial of sub;ect criinal
cases, and disposin%, thus8
<IN VI/> O! &00 TH/ !OR/?OIN? considerations, the petition is %iven
due course and the orders of respondent ;ud%e dated &u%ust *-, *--6 and
Septeber *, *--6 are set aside and declared null and void1 Respondent ;ud%e
is hereby directed to proceed 4ith the hearin% of the case, i1e1, 4ith the
presentation of evidence by the accused, then the rebuttal or surrebuttal
evidence, if necessary and thereafter, to decide the case on the basis of the
evidence adduced1 No pronounceent as to costs1
SO ORD/R/D1=
On )anuary *-, *--., instead of conductin% the trial, as directed by the #ourt of &ppeals, the
respondent ;ud%e disissed the cases motu proprio, once more, opinin% that P1D1 776 is rendered
obsolete and deeed repealed by Sections - and *9, &rticle @III of the *-+7
#onstitution, 4hich provide that <urban or rural poor d4ellers shall not be evicted nor their
d4ellin%s deolished eAcept in accordance 4ith la4 and in a ;ust and huane anner1=
Petitioners" Motion for Reconsideration interposed on )anuary 6-, *--., havin% been denied
by the respondent )ud%e on !ebruary ,, *--., petitioners found their 4ay to this court via the
instant petition1
The issue posited here is 4hether or not the respondent ;ud%e acted 4ith %rave abuse of
discretion aountin% to lac$ or eAcess of ;urisdiction in disissin% sub;ect criinal cases for
violation of the &nti5S:uattin% 0a4, and in declarin% the said la4 as repu%nant to the provisions
of the *-+7 #onstitution1
To be%in 4ith, to every le%islative act attaches the presuption of
constitutionality1 'Misolas vs1Pan%a, *+* S#R& 3,+B &lvareC vs1 ?uin%ona, )r1, 6D6 S#R&
3-D(1 Enless other4ise repealed by a subse:uent la4 or ad;ud%ed unconstitutional by this #ourt,
a la4 4ill al4ays be presued valid and the first and fundaental duty of the court is to apply
the la41 '0i vs1 Pac:uin%, 6,9 S#R& 3,-B National !ederation of 0abor vs1 /isa, *67 S#R&
,*-(
Then, too, it is a basic rule of statutory construction that repeals by iplication are not
favored unless it is anifest that such is the le%islative intent1 'Napocor vs1 Province of 0anao
del Sur, 63, S#R& 67*( This doctrine is preised on the rationale that the 4ill of the le%islature
cannot be overturned by the ;udicial function of construction and interpretation1 'Ty vs1 Trape,
6D9 S#R& D99B !rivaldo vs1 #oelec, 6D7 S#R& 767B &%u;etas vs1 #ourt of &ppeals, 63*
S#R& *7(
Presidential Decree No1 776, other4ise $no4n as the &nti5S:uattin% 0a4, en;oys this
presuption of constitutionality1 &t the tie the respondent )ud%e rendered the :uestioned
Decision and issued the orders of disissal in *--., Presidential Decree No1 776, &nti5S:uattin%
0a4, 4as still effective1 Neither has this #ourt declared its unconstitutionality, not4ithstandin%
the social ;ustice provision of &rticle @III of the *-+7 #onstitution, specifically on urban land
refor and housin%1
&rticle @III of the *-+7 #onstitution, provides8
<Section -1 The State shall, by la4, and for the coon %ood, underta$e, in
cooperation 4ith the private sector, a continuin% pro%ra of urban land refor
and housin% 4hich 4ill a$e available at affordable cost decent housin% and
basic services to underprivile%ed and hoeless citiCens in urban centers and
resettleent areas1 It shall also proote ade:uate eployent opportunities
to such citiCens1 In the ipleentation of such pro%ra the State shall respect
the ri%hts of sall property o4ners1=
<Sec1 *91 Erban or rural poor d4ellers shall not be evicted nor their d4ellin%s
deolished, eAcept in accordance 4ith la4 and in a ;ust and huane anner1
No resettleent of urban or rural d4ellers shall be underta$en 4ithout
ade:uate consultation 4ith the and the counities 4here they are to be
relocated1F
Presidential Decree No1 776, on the other hand, states8
<Sec1 *1 &ny person, 4ith the use of force, intiidation or threat, or ta$in%
advanta%e of the absence or tolerance of the lando4ner, succeeds in occupyin%
or possessin% the property of the latter a%ainst his 4ill for residential,
coercial or any other purposes, shall be punished by iprisonent ran%in%
fro siA onths to one year or a fine not less than one thousand or ore
than five thousand pesos at the discretion of the #ourt, 4ith subsidiary
iprisonent in case of insolvency1
If the offender is a corporation or association, the aAiu penalty of five
years and the fine of thousand pesos shall be iposed upon the president,
director, ana%er or ana%in% partners thereof1=
In disissin% sub;ect criinal cases for anti5s:uattin%, respondent )ud%e ratiocinated that <if
all the accused in these cases 4ere convicted and ordered evicted, it 4ill run counter to the said
specific constitutional provisions because the conviction and eviction 4ill not be in a ;ust and
huane anner as the %overnent has not yet underta$en the resettleent of urban and rural
d4ellers 'referrin% to all accused in the cases at bar( and neither has the %overnent consulted all
the accused as to 4here they should be relocated1=
!ro the afore:uoted portion of the :uestioned disposition belo4, it can be %leaned that the
reason of respondent )ud%e in disissin% sub;ect cases is that the eviction of the accused 4as not
effected in a ;ust and huane anner as the %overnent has not yet established a resettleent
area for the accused, and those 4ho 4ould be evicted have not been consulted as to the place of
their relocation1 The iport of the Order of disissal under scrutiny is that5 should the eviction
be in a ;ust and huane anner, the sae shall be valid and upheld1
The #ourt holds that the respondent ;ud%e did not err in so construin% the aforecited
constitutional provision1 Ender the #onstitution, 4hat a$es the eviction and deolition of
urban or rural poor d4ellers ille%al or unla4ful is 4hen the sae are not done in accordance 4ith
la4 and in a ;ust and huane anner1
Ho4ever, respondent )ud%e erred in predicatin% the validity or le%ality of eviction on the
eAistence of a resettleent plan and area1 The constitutional re:uireent that the eviction and
deolition be in accordance 4ith la4 and conducted in a ;ust and huane anner does not ean
that the validity or le%ality of the deolition or eviction is hin%ed on the eAistence of a
resettleent area desi%nated or earar$ed by the %overnent1 >hat is eant by <in accordance
4ith la4= and <;ust and huane anner= is that the person to be evicted be accorded due process
or an opportunity to controvert the alle%ation that his or her occupation or possession of the
property involved is unla4ful or a%ainst the 4ill of the lando4nerB that should the ille%al or
unla4ful occupation be proven, the occupant be sufficiently notified before actual eviction or
deolition is doneB and that there be no loss of lives, physical in;uries or unnecessary loss of or
daa%e to properties1
Precisely, the enactent of an anti5s:uattin% la4 affords the alle%ed <s:uatters= the
opportunity to present their case before a copetent court 4here their ri%hts 4ill be aply
protected and due process strictly observed1 2y filin% the proper inforations in court,
coplainants have coplied 4ith the first re:uireent of due process, that is, the opportunity for
the accused to be heard and present evidence to sho4 that his or her occupation or possession of
the property is not a%ainst the 4ill or 4ithout the consent of the lando4ner and is not tainted by
the use of force, intiidation, threat or by the ta$in% advanta%e of the absence of or tolerance by
the lando4ners1
!urtherore, 4hat %ives ipetus to P1 D1 776 is the constitutional andate that 5 <no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 4ithout due process of la41= !ar fro
contravenin%, P1 D1 776 confors 4ith the *-+7 #onstitution, in that it protects the ri%hts of a
property o4ner a%ainst unla4ful and ille%al intrusion1
It should li$e4ise be noted that a constitutional :uestion 4ill not be decided unless it is
properly raised in appropriate cases 'Tropical Hoes Inc1 vs1 National Housin% &uthority, *,6
S#R& D,9(1 2efore the court can assue ;urisdiction over a constitutional :uestion, the
follo4in% re:uisites ust first be et8 '*( there ust be an actual case or controversy, includin%
a conflict of ri%hts susceptible of ;udicial deterinationB '6( the constitutional :uestion ust be
raised by a proper partyB '.( the constitutional :uestion ust be raised at the earliest opportunityB
and ',( the resolution of the constitutional :uestion ust be necessary for the resolution of the
case1 '2oard of Optoetry vs #olet, 639 S#R& ++(
In the case at bar, the respondent )ud%e disissed sub;ect cases motu proprio, after the
prosecution had rested the sae and 4ithout %ivin% the three accused an opportunity to present
their evidence1 >hat is ore, there is no sho4in% that the issue of constitutionality of P1 D1 776
4as ever posed by the accused1 #onse:uently, such an issue cannot be %iven due course for the
siple reason that it 4as not raised by the proper party at the earliest opportunity1
2ut the fore%oin% antecedent facts and proceedin%s not4ithstandin%, the petition cannot no4
prosper because on October 67, *--7, Republic &ct No1 +.3+, entitled <&n &ct Repealin%
Presidential Decree No1 776 /ntitled GPenaliCin% S:uattin% and Other Siilar &cts"= 4as
enacted1 Section . of the said &ct provides that <all pendin% cases under the provisions of
Presidential Decree No1 776 shall be disissed upon the effectivity of this &ct1=
9EREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISS/D, 4ithout any pronounceent as to
costs1
SO OR6ERE6.
Narvasa, C.J., 'Chairman(, Romero, and Kapunan, JJ1, concur1
-EC:N% %1V1-1:N
9G.R. No. 118978. M!# 43, 1997:
P2ILIPPINE TELEGRAP2 AN* TELEP2ONE COMPAN;,
<
petitioner,
vs. NATIONAL LA+OR RELATIONS COMMISSION !') GRACE
*E GU.MAN, respondents.
* E C I S I O N
REGALA*O, J.=
-ee)in relief throuh the e'traordinar# "rit of certiorari, petitioner Philippine
$eleraph and $elephone Co!pan# @hereafter, P$D$A invo)es the alleed conceal!ent
of civil status and defalcation of co!pan# funds as rounds to ter!inate the services of
an e!plo#ee. $hat e!plo#ee, herein private respondent 9race de 9u*!an, contraril#
arues that "hat reall# !otivated P$D$ to ter!inate her services "as her havin
contracted !arriae durin her e!plo#!ent, "hich is prohibited b# petitioner in its
co!pan# policies. -he thus clai!s that she "as discri!inated aainst in ross violation
of la", such a proscription b# an e!plo#er bein outla"ed b# Article 325 of the &abor
Code.
9race de 9u*!an "as initiall# hired b# petitioner as a reliever, specificall# as a
E-upernu!erar# Pro,ect /or)er,F for a fi'ed period fro! Nove!ber ?3, 344< until April
?<, 3443 vice one C.8. $enorio "ho "ent on !aternit# leave.
G3H
Cnder the Reliever
Aree!ent "hich she sined "ith petitioner co!pan#, her e!plo#!ent "as to be
i!!ediatel# ter!inated upon e'piration of the areed period. $hereafter, fro! June 3<,
3443 to Jul# 3, 3443, and fro! Jul# 34, 3443 to Auust 6, 3443, private respondentIs
services as reliever "ere aain enaed b# petitioner, this ti!e in replace!ent of one
Erlinda 8. %i*on "ho "ent on leave durin both periods.
G?H
After Auust 6, 3443, and
pursuant to their Reliever Aree!ent, her services "ere ter!inated.
:n -epte!ber ?, 3443, private respondent "as once !ore as)ed to ,oin petitioner
co!pan# as a probationar# e!plo#ee, the probationar# period to cover 3B< da#s. 1n
the ,ob application for! that "as furnished her to be filled up for the purpose, she
indicated in the portion for civil status therein that she "as sinle althouh she had
contracted !arriae a fe" !onths earlier, that is, on Ma# ?5, 3443.
G2H
1t no" appears that private respondent had !ade the sa!e representation in the
t"o successive reliever aree!ents "hich she sined on June 3<, 3443 and Jul# 6,
3443. /hen petitioner supposedl# learned about the sa!e later, its branch supervisor
in Bauio Cit#, %elia M. :ficial, sent to private respondent a !e!orandu! dated
Januar# 3B, 344? re.uirin her to e'plain the discrepanc#. 1n that !e!orandu!, she
"as re!inded about the co!pan#Is polic# of not acceptin !arried "o!en for
e!plo#!ent.
G;H
1n her repl# letter dated Januar# 3=, 344?, private respondent stated that she "as
not a"are of P$D$Is polic# reardin !arried "o!en at the ti!e, and that all alon she
had not deliberatel# hidden her true civil status.
GBH
Petitioner nonetheless re!ained
unconvinced b# her e'planations. Private respondent "as dis!issed fro! the co!pan#
effective Januar# ?4, 344?,
G5H
"hich she readil# contested b# initiatin a co!plaint for
illeal dis!issal, coupled "ith a clai! for non-pa#!ent of cost of livin allo"ances
@C:&AA, before the Reional Arbitration Branch of the National &abor Relations
Co!!ission in Bauio Cit#.
At the preli!inar# conference conducted in connection there"ith, private
respondent volunteered the infor!ation, and this "as incorporated in the stipulation of
facts bet"een the parties, that she had failed to re!it the a!ount of P?,26<.=B of her
collections. -he then e'ecuted a pro!issor# note for that a!ount in favor of petitioner.
G=H
All of these too) place in a for!al proceedin and "ith the aree!ent of the parties
andJor their counsel.
:n Nove!ber ?2, 3442, &abor Arbiter 1renarco R. Ri!ando handed do"n a
decision declarin that private respondent, "ho had alread# ained the status of a
reular e!plo#ee, "as illeall# dis!issed b# petitioner. (er reinstate!ent, plus
pa#!ent of the correspondin bac) "aes and C:&A, "as correspondinl# ordered,
the labor arbiter bein of the fir!l# e'pressed vie" that the round relied upon b#
petitioner in dis!issin private respondent "as clearl# insufficient, and that it "as
apparent that she had been discri!inated aainst on account of her havin contracted
!arriae in violation of co!pan# rules.
:n appeal to the National &abor Relations Co!!ission @N&RCA, said public
respondent upheld the labor arbiter and, in its decision dated April ?4, 344;, it ruled that
private respondent had indeed been the sub,ect of an un,ust and unla"ful discri!ination
b# her e!plo#er, P$D$. (o"ever, the decision of the labor arbiter "as !odified "ith the
.ualification that 9race de 9u*!an deserved to be suspended for three !onths in vie"
of the dishonest nature of her acts "hich should not be condoned. 1n all other respects,
the N&RC affir!ed the decision of the labor arbiter, includin the order for the
reinstate!ent of private respondent in her e!plo#!ent "ith P$D$.
$he subse.uent !otion for reconsideration filed b# petitioner "as rebuffed b#
respondent N&RC in its resolution of Nove!ber 4, 344;, hence this special civil action
assailin the aforestated decisions of the labor arbiter and respondent N&RC, as "ell as
the denial resolution of the latter.
3. %ecreed in the Bible itself is the universal nor! that "o!en should be rearded
"ith love and respect but, throuh the aes, !en have responded to that in,unction "ith
indifference, on the hubristic conceit that "o!en constitute the inferior se'. No"here
has that pre,udice aainst "o!an)ind been so pervasive as in the field of labor,
especiall# on the !atter of e.ual e!plo#!ent opportunities and standards. 1n the
Philippine settin, "o!en have traditionall# been considered as fallin "ithin the
vulnerable roups or t#pes of "or)ers "ho !ust be safeuarded "ith preventive and
re!edial social leislation aainst discri!inator# and e'ploitative practices in hirin,
trainin, benefits, pro!otion and retention.
$he Constitution, coni*ant of the disparit# in rihts bet"een !en and "o!en in
al!ost all phases of social and political life, provides a a!ut of protective
provisions. $o cite a fe" of the pri!ordial ones, -ection 3;, Article 11
G6H
on the
%eclaration of Principles and -tate Policies, e'pressl# reconi*es the role of "o!en in
nation-buildin and co!!ands the -tate to ensure, at all ti!es, the funda!ental
e.ualit# before the la" of "o!en and !en. Corollar# thereto, -ection 2 of Article
K111
G4H
@the proenitor "hereof dates bac) to both the 342B and 34=2 ConstitutionA
pointedl# re.uires the -tate to afford full protection to labor and to pro!ote full
e!plo#!ent and e.ualit# of e!plo#!ent opportunities for all, includin an assurance of
entitle!ent to tenurial securit# of all "or)ers. -i!ilarl#, -ection 3; of Article
K111
G3<H
!andates that the -tate shall protect "or)in "o!en throuh provisions for
opportunities that "ould enable the! to reach their full potential.
?. Corrective labor and social la"s on ender ine.ualit# have e!ered "ith !ore
fre.uenc# in the #ears since the &abor Code "as enacted on Ma# 3, 34=; as
Presidential %ecree No. ;;?, larel# due to our countr#Is co!!it!ent as a sinator# to
the Cnited Nations Convention on the Eli!ination of All 8or!s of %iscri!ination Aainst
/o!en @CE%A/A.
G33H
Principal a!on these la"s are Republic Act No. 5=?=
G3?H
"hich e'plicitl# prohibits
discri!ination aainst "o!en "ith respect to ter!s and conditions of e!plo#!ent,
pro!otion, and trainin opportunitiesL Republic Act No. 54BB
G32H
"hich bans the E!ail-
order-brideF practice for a fee and the e'port of fe!ale labor to countries that cannot
uarantee protection to the rihts of "o!en "or)ersL Republic Act No. =34?,
G3;H
also
)no"n as the E/o!en in %evelop!ent and Nation Buildin Act,F "hich affords "o!en
e.ual opportunities "ith !en to act and to enter into contracts, and for appoint!ent,
ad!ission, trainin, raduation, and co!!issionin in all !ilitar# or si!ilar schools of
the Ar!ed 8orces of the Philippines and the Philippine National PoliceL Republic Act No.
=2??
G3BH
increasin the !aternit# benefits ranted to "o!en in the private sectorL
Republic Act No. =6==
G35H
"hich outla"s and punishes se'ual harass!ent in the
"or)place and in the education and trainin environ!entL and Republic Act No. 6<;?,
G3=H
or the EMirant /or)ers and :verseas 8ilipinos Act of 344B,F "hich prescribes as a
!atter of polic#, inter alia, the deplo#!ent of !irant "or)ers, "ith e!phasis on
"o!en, onl# in countries "here their rihts are secure. &i)e"ise, it "ould not be a!iss
to point out that in the 8a!il# Code,
G36H
"o!enIs rihts in the field of civil la" have been
reatl# enhanced and e'panded.
1n the &abor Code, provisions overnin the rihts of "o!en "or)ers are found in
Articles 32< to 326 thereof. Article 32< involves the riht aainst particular )inds of
niht "or) "hile Article 32? ensures the riht of "o!en to be provided "ith facilities and
standards "hich the -ecretar# of &abor !a# establish to ensure their health and
safet#. 8or purposes of labor and social leislation, a "o!an "or)in in a nihtclub,
coc)tail loune, !assae clinic, bar or other si!ilar establish!ents shall be considered
as an e!plo#ee under Article 326. Article 32B, on the other hand, reconi*es a
"o!anIs riht aainst discri!ination "ith respect to ter!s and conditions of
e!plo#!ent on account si!pl# of se'. 8inall#, and this brins us to the issue at hand,
Article 325 e'plicitl# prohibits discri!ination !erel# b# reason of the !arriae of a
fe!ale e!plo#ee.
2. Ac)no"leded as para!ount in the due process sche!e is the constitutional
uarantee of protection to labor and securit# of tenure. $hus, an e!plo#er is re.uired,
as a condition sine %ua non prior to severance of the e!plo#!ent ties of an individual
under his e!plo#, to convincinl# establish, throuh substantial evidence, the e'istence
of a valid and ,ust cause in dispensin "ith the services of such e!plo#ee, oneIs labor
bein rearded as constitutionall# protected propert#.
:n the other hand, it is reconi*ed that reulation of !anpo"er b# the co!pan#
falls "ithin the so-called !anae!ent preroatives, "hich prescriptions enco!pass the
!atter of hirin, supervision of "or)ers, "or) assin!ents, "or)in !ethods and
assin!ents, as "ell as reulations on the transfer of e!plo#ees, la#-off of "or)ers,
and the discipline, dis!issal, and recall of e!plo#ees.
G34H
As put in a case, an e!plo#er is
free to reulate, accordin to his discretion and best business ,ud!ent, all aspects of
e!plo#!ent, Efro! hirin to firin,F e'cept in cases of unla"ful discri!ination or those
"hich !a# be provided b# la".
G?<H
1n the case at bar, petitionerIs polic# of not acceptin or considerin as dis.ualified
fro! "or) an# "o!an "or)er "ho contracts !arriae runs afoul of the test of, and the
riht aainst, discri!ination, afforded all "o!en "or)ers b# our labor la"s and b# no
less than the Constitution. Contrar# to petitionerIs assertion that it dis!issed private
respondent fro! e!plo#!ent on account of her dishonest#, the record discloses clearl#
that her ties "ith the co!pan# "ere dissolved principall# because of the co!pan#Is
polic# that !arried "o!en are not .ualified for e!plo#!ent in P$D$, and not !erel#
because of her supposed acts of dishonest#.
$hat it "as so can easil# be seen fro! the !e!orandu! sent to private respondent
b# %elia M. :ficial, the branch supervisor of the co!pan#, "ith the re!inder, in the
"ords of the latter, that E#ouIre full# a"are that the co!pan# is not acceptin !arried
"o!en e!plo#ee @sicA, as it "as verball# instructed to #ou.F
G?3H
Aain, in the ter!ination
notice sent to her b# the sa!e branch supervisor, private respondent "as !ade to
understand that her severance fro! the service "as not onl# b# reason of her
conceal!ent of her !arried status but, over and on top of that, "as her violation of the
co!pan#Is polic# aainst !arriae @Eand even told #ou that !arried "o!en e!plo#ees
are not applicable GsicH or accepted in our co!pan#.FA
G??H
Parentheticall#, this see!s to be
the curious reason "h# it "as !ade to appear in the initiator# pleadins that petitioner
"as represented in this case onl# b# its said supervisor and not b# its hihest ran)in
officers "ho "ould other"ise be solidaril# liable "ith the corporation.
G?2H
Veril#, private respondentIs act of concealin the true nature of her status fro!
P$D$ could not be properl# characteri*ed as "illful or in bad faith as she "as !oved to
act the "a# she did !ainl# because she "anted to retain a per!anent ,ob in a stable
co!pan#. 1n other "ords, she "as practicall# forced b# that ver# sa!e illeal co!pan#
polic# into !isrepresentin her civil status for fear of bein dis.ualified fro!
"or). /hile loss of confidence is a ,ust cause for ter!ination of e!plo#!ent, it should
not be si!ulated.
G?;H
1t !ust rest on an actual breach of dut# co!!itted b# the e!plo#ee
and not on the e!plo#erIs caprices.
G?BH
8urther!ore, it should never be used as a
subterfue for causes "hich are i!proper, illeal, or un,ustified.
G?5H
1n the present controvers#, petitionerIs e'postulations that it dis!issed private
respondent, not because the latter ot !arried but because she concealed that fact,
does have a hollo" rin. (er conceal!ent, so it is clai!ed, bespea)s dishonest# hence
the conse.uent loss of confidence in her "hich ,ustified her dis!issal. Petitioner "ould
asseverate, therefore, that "hile it has nothin aainst !arriae, it nonetheless ta)es
u!brae over the conceal!ent of that fact. $his i!probable reasonin, "ith interstitial
distinctions, perturbs the Court since private respondent !a# "ell be !inded to clai!
that the i!putation of dishonest# should be the other "a# around.
Petitioner "ould have the Court believe that althouh private respondent defied its
polic# aainst its fe!ale e!plo#ees contractin !arriae, "hat could be an act of
insubordination "as inconse.uential. /hat it sub!its as unforivable is her
conceal!ent of that !arriae #et, at the sa!e ti!e, declarin that !arriae as a trivial
!atter to "hich it supposedl# has no ob,ection. 1n other "ords, P$D$ sa#s it ives its
blessins to its fe!ale e!plo#ees contractin !arriae, despite the !aternit# leaves
and other benefits it "ould conse.uentl# respond for and "hich obviousl# it "ould have
"anted to avoid. 1f that e!plo#ee confesses such fact of !arriae, there "ill be no
sanctionL but if such e!plo#ee conceals the sa!e instead of proceedin to the
confessional, she "ill be dis!issed. $his line of reasonin does not i!press us as
reflectin its true !anae!ent polic# or that "e are bein realed "ith responsible
advocac#.
$his Court should be spared the ennui of strained reasonin and the tediu' of
propositions "hich confuse throuh less than candid aru!ents. 1ndeed, petitioner
losses over the fact that it "as its unla"ful polic# aainst !arried "o!en, both on the
aspects of .ualification and retention, "hich co!pelled private respondent to conceal
her supervenient !arriae. 1t "as, ho"ever, that ver# polic# alone "hich "as the cause
of private respondentIs secretive conduct no" co!plained of. 1t is then apropos to
recall the fa!iliar sa#in that he "ho is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused.
8inall#, petitionerIs collateral insistence on the ad!ission of private respondent that
she supposedl# !isappropriated co!pan# funds, as an additional round to dis!iss her
fro! e!plo#!ent, is so!e"hat insincere and self-servin. Concededl#, private
respondent ad!itted in the course of the proceedins that she failed to re!it so!e of
her collections, but that is an altoether different stor#. $he fact is that she "as
dis!issed solel# because of her conceal!ent of her !arital status, and not on the basis
of that supposed defalcation of co!pan# funds. $hat the labor arbiter "ould thus
consider petitionerIs sub!issions on this supposed dishonest# as a !ere afterthouht,
,ust to bolster its case for dis!issal, is a perceptive conclusion born of e'perience in
labor cases. 8or, there "as no sho"in that private respondent deliberatel#
!isappropriated the a!ount or "hether her failure to re!it the sa!e "as throuh
nelience and, if so, "hether the nelience "as in nature si!ple or rave. 1n fact, it
"as !erel# areed that private respondent e'ecute a pro!issor# note to refund the
sa!e, "hich she did, and the !atter "as dee!ed settled as a peripheral issue in the
labor case.
Private respondent, it !ust be observed, had ained reular status at the ti!e of
her dis!issal. /hen she "as served her "al)in papers on Januar# ?4, 344?, she "as
about to co!plete the probationar# period of 3B< da#s as she "as contracted as a
probationar# e!plo#ee on -epte!ber ?, 3443. $hat her dis!issal "ould be effected
,ust "hen her probationar# period "as "indin do"n clearl# raises the plausible
conclusion that it "as done in order to prevent her fro! earnin securit# of tenure.
G?=H
:n
the other hand, her earlier stints "ith the co!pan# as reliever "ere undoubtedl# those
of a reular e!plo#ee, even if the sa!e "ere for fi'ed periods, as she perfor!ed
activities "hich "ere essential or necessar# in the usual trade and business of P$D$.
G?6H
$he pri!ar# standard of deter!inin reular e!plo#!ent is the reasonable
connection bet"een the activit# perfor!ed b# the e!plo#ee in relation to the business
or trade of the e!plo#er.
G?4H
As an e!plo#ee "ho had therefore ained reular status, and as she had been
dis!issed "ithout ,ust cause, she is entitled to reinstate!ent "ithout loss of seniorit#
rihts and other privilees and to full bac) "aes, inclusive of allo"ances and other
benefits or their !onetar# e.uivalent.
G2<H
(o"ever, as she had undeniabl# co!!itted an
act of dishonest# in concealin her status, albeit under the co!pulsion of an unla"ful
i!position of petitioner, the three-!onth suspension i!posed b# respondent N&RC
!ust be upheld to obviate the i!pression or inference that such act should be
condoned. 1t "ould be unfair to the e!plo#er if she "ere to return to its fold "ithout an#
sanction "hatsoever for her act "hich "as not totall# ,ustified. $hus, her entitle!ent to
bac) "aes, "hich shall be co!puted fro! the ti!e her co!pensation "as "ithheld up
to the ti!e of her actual reinstate!ent, shall be reduced b# deductin therefro! the
a!ount correspondin to her three !onths suspension.
;. $he overn!ent, to repeat, abhors an# stipulation or polic# in the nature of that
adopted b# petitioner P$D$. $he &abor Code states, in no uncertain ter!s, as follo"s0
<&RT1 *.31 Stipulation against marriage1 5 It shall be unla4ful for an eployer to
re:uire as a condition of eployent or continuation of eployent that a 4oan
shall not %et arried, or to stipulate eApressly or tacitly that upon %ettin% arried, a
4oan eployee shall be deeed resi%ned or separated, or to actually disiss,
dischar%e, discriinate or other4ise pre;udice a 4oan eployee erely by reason
of arria%e1=
$his provision had a studied histor# for its oriin can be traced to -ection 6 of
Presidential %ecree No. 3;6,
G23H
better )no"n as the E/o!en and Child &abor &a",F
"hich a!ended pararaph @cA, -ection 3? of Republic Act No. 5=4,
G2?H
entitled EAn Act to
Reulate the E!plo#!ent of /o!en and Children, to Provide Penalties for Violations
$hereof, and for :ther Purposes.F $he forerunner to Republic Act No. 5=4, on the other
hand, "as Act No. 2<=3 "hich beca!e la" on March 35, 34?2 and "hich reulated the
e!plo#!ent of "o!en and children in shops, factories, industrial, aricultural, and
!ercantile establish!ents and other places of labor in the then Philippine 1slands.
1t "ould be "orth"hile to reflect upon and adopt here the rationali*ation in +ialcita
et al. vs. )hilippine Air ,ines,
G22H
a decision that e!anated fro! the :ffice of the
President. $here, a polic# of Philippine Air &ines re.uirin that prospective fliht
attendants !ust be sinle and that the# "ill be auto!aticall# separated fro! the service
once the# !arr# "as declared void, it bein violative of the clear !andate in Article 325
of the &abor Code "ith reard to discri!ination aainst !arried "o!en. $hus0
<Of first ipression is the incopatibility of the respondent"s policy or re%ulation
4ith the codal provision of la41 Respondent is resolute in its contention that &rticle
*.3 of the 0abor #ode applies only to 4oen eployed in ordinary occupations and
that the prohibition a%ainst arria%e of 4oen en%a%ed in eAtraordinary occupations,
li$e fli%ht attendants, is fair and reasonable, considerin% the pecularities of their
chosen profession1
>e cannot subscribe to the line of reasonin% pursued by respondent1 &ll alon%, it
$ne4 that the controverted policy has already et its doo as early as March *.,
*-7. 4hen Presidential Decree No1 *,+, other4ise $no4n as the >oen and #hild
0abor 0a4, 4as proul%ated1 2ut for the tiidity of those affected or their labor
unions in challen%in% the validity of the policy, the sae 4as able to obtain a
oentary reprieve1 & close loo$ at Section + of said decree, 4hich aended
para%raph 'c( of Section *6 of Republic &ct No1 37-, reveals that it is eAactly the
sae provision reproduced verbatim in &rticle *.3 of the 0abor #ode, 4hich 4as
proul%ated on May *, *-7, to ta$e effect siA '3( onths later, or on Noveber *,
*-7,1
It cannot be %ainsaid that, 4ith the reiteration of the sae provision in the ne4 0abor
#ode, all policies and acts a%ainst it are deeed ille%al and therefore abro%ated1 True,
&rticle *.6 en;oins the Secretary of 0abor to establish standards that 4ill ensure the
safety and health of 4oen eployees and in appropriate cases shall by re%ulation
re:uire eployers to deterine appropriate iniu standards for terination in
special occupations, such as those of fli%ht attendants, but that is precisely the factor
that ilitates a%ainst the policy of respondent1 The standards have not yet been
established as set forth in the first para%raph, nor has the Secretary of 0abor issued
any re%ulation affectin% fli%ht attendants1
It is lo%ical to presue that, in the absence of said standards or re%ulations 4hich are
as yet to be established, the policy of respondent a%ainst arria%e is patently
ille%al1 This finds support in Section - of the Ne4 #onstitution, 4hich provides8
<Sec1 -1 The State shall afford protection to labor, proote full eployent and
e:uality in eployent, ensure e:ual 4or$ opportunities re%ardless of seA, race, or
creed, and re%ulate the relations bet4een 4or$ers and eployees1 The State shall
assure the ri%hts of 4or$ers to self5or%aniCation, collective bar%ainin%, security of
tenure, and ;ust and huane conditions of 4or$ A A A1=
Moreover, 4e cannot a%ree to the respondent"s proposition that terination fro
eployent of fli%ht attendants on account of arria%e is a fair and reasonable
standard desi%ned for their o4n health, safety, protection and 4elfare, as no basis has
been laid therefor1 &ctually, respondent clais that its concern is not so
uch a%ainst the continued eployent of the fli%ht attendant erely by reason of
arria%e as observed by the Secretary of 0abor, but rather on the conse:uence of
arria%e5pre%nancy1 Respondent discussed at len%th in the instant appeal the
supposed ill effects of pre%nancy on fli%ht attendants in the course of their
eployent1 >e feel that this needs no further discussion as it had been ade:uately
eAplained by the Secretary of 0abor in his decision of May 6, *-731
In a vain attept to %ive eanin% to its position, respondent 4ent as far as invo$in%
the provisions of &rticles D6 and 6*3 of the Ne4 #ivil #ode on the preservation of
arria%e as an inviolable social institution and the faily as a basic social institution,
respectively, as bases for its policy of non5arria%e1 In both instances, respondent
predicates absence of a fli%ht attendant fro her hoe for lon% periods of tie as
contributory to an unhappy arried life1 This is pure con;ecture not based on actual
conditions, considerin% that, in this odern 4orld, sophisticated technolo%y has
narro4ed the distance fro one place to another1 Moreover, respondent overloo$ed
the fact that arried fli%ht attendants can pro%ra their lives to adapt to prevailin%
circustances and events1
&rticle *.3 is not intended to apply only to 4oen eployed in ordinary occupations,
or it should have cate%orically eApressed so1 The s4eepin% intendent of the la4, be
it on special or ordinary occupations, is reflected in the 4hole teAt and supported by
&rticle *.D that spea$s of non5discriination on the eployent of 4oen1
$he ,ud!ent of the Court of Appeals in Gual(erto et al. vs. #arindu%ue #ining -
.ndustrial "orporation
G2;H
considered as void a polic# of the sa!e nature. 1n said case,
respondent, in dis!issin fro! the service the co!plainant, invo)ed a polic# of the fir!
to consider fe!ale e!plo#ees in the pro,ect it "as underta)in as separated the
!o!ent the# et !arried due to lac) of facilities for !arried "o!en. Respondent
further clai!ed that co!plainant "as e!plo#ed in the pro,ect "ith an oral understandin
that her services "ould be ter!inated "hen she ets !arried. Brandin the polic# of
the e!plo#er as an e'a!ple of Ediscri!inator# chauvinis!F tanta!ount to den#in e.ual
e!plo#!ent opportunities to "o!en si!pl# on account of their se', the appellate court
struc) do"n said e!plo#er polic# as unla"ful in vie" of its repunance to the Civil
Code, Presidential %ecree No. 3;6 and the Constitution.
Cnder A!erican ,urisprudence, ,ob re.uire!ents "hich establish e!plo#er
preference or conditions relatin to the !arital status of an e!plo#ee are cateori*ed as
a Ese'-plusF discri!ination "here it is i!posed on one se' and not on the
other. 8urther, the sa!e should be evenl# applied and !ust not inflict adverse effects
on a racial or se'ual roup "hich is protected b# federal ,ob discri!ination
la"s. E!plo#!ent rules that forbid or restrict the e!plo#!ent of !arried "o!en, but
do not appl# to !arried !en, have been held to violate $itle V11 of the Cnited -tates Civil
Rihts Act of 345;, the !ain federal statute prohibitin ,ob discri!ination aainst
e!plo#ees and applicants on the basis of, a!on other thins, se'.
G2BH
8urther, it is not relevant that the rule is not directed aainst all "o!en but ,ust
aainst !arried "o!en. And, "here the e!plo#er discri!inates aainst !arried
"o!en, but not aainst !arried !en, the variable is se' and the discri!ination is
unla"ful.
G25H
Cpon the other hand, a re.uire!ent that a "o!an e!plo#ee !ust re!ain
un!arried could be ,ustified as a Ebona fide occupational .ualification,F or B8:M, "here
the particular re.uire!ents of the ,ob "ould ,ustif# the sa!e, but not on the round of a
eneral principle, such as the desirabilit# of spreadin "or) in the "or)place. A
re.uire!ent of that nature "ould be valid provided it reflects an inherent .ualit#
reasonabl# necessar# for satisfactor# ,ob perfor!ance. $hus, in one case, a no-
!arriae rule applicable to both !ale and fe!ale fliht attendants, "as rearded as
unla"ful since the restriction "as not related to the ,ob perfor!ance of the fliht
attendants.
G2=H
B. PetitionerIs polic# is not onl# in deroation of the provisions of Article 325 of the
&abor Code on the riht of a "o!an to be free fro! an# )ind of stipulation aainst
!arriae in connection "ith her e!plo#!ent, but it li)e"ise assaults ood !orals and
public polic#, tendin as it does to deprive a "o!an of the freedo! to choose her
status, a privilee that b# all accounts inheres in the individual as an intanible and
inalienable riht.
G26H
(ence, "hile it is true that the parties to a contract !a# establish an#
aree!ents, ter!s, and conditions that the# !a# dee! convenient, the sa!e should
not be contrar# to la", !orals, ood custo!s, public order, or public polic#.
G24H
Carried to
its loical conse.uences, it !a# even be said that petitionerIs polic# aainst leiti!ate
!arital bonds "ould encourae illicit or co!!on-la" relations and subvert the
sacra!ent of !arriae.
Parentheticall#, the Civil Code provisions on the contract of labor state that the
relations bet"een the parties, that is, of capital and labor, are not !erel# contractual,
i!pressed as the# are "ith so !uch public interest that the sa!e should #ield to the
co!!on ood.
G;<H
1t oes on to intone that neither capital nor labor should visit acts of
oppression aainst the other, nor i!pair the interest or convenience of the public.
G;3H
1n
the final rec)onin, the daner of ,ust such a polic# aainst !arriae follo"ed b#
petitioner P$D$ is that it stri)es at the ver# essence, ideals and purpose of !arriae as
an inviolable social institution and, ulti!atel#, of the fa!il# as the foundation of the
nation.
G;?H
$hat it !ust be effectivel# interdicted here in all its indirect, disuised or
disse!bled for!s as discri!inator# conduct deroator# of the la"s of the land is not
onl# in order but i!perativel# re.uired.
ON T2E /OREGOING PREMISES, the petition of Philippine $eleraph and
$elephone Co!pan# is hereb# %1-M1--E% for lac) of !erit, "ith double costs aainst
petitionersSO OR*ERE*.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 81968 J1'e 30, 1988
P2ILIPPINE ASSOCIATION O/ SERICE E>PORTERS,
INC., petitioner,
vs.
2ON. /RAN?LIN M. *RILON !" Se-ret!r# o$ L!bor !')
Emp(o#me't, !') TOMAS *. AC2ACOSO, !" A)m&'&"tr!tor o$ t%e
P%&(&pp&'e O,er"e!" Emp(o#me't A)m&'&"tr!t&o', respondents.
Gutierre/ - Alo ,a& Offices for petitioner.

SARMIENTO, J.:
$he petitioner, Philippine Association of -ervice E'porters, 1nc.
@PA-E1, for shortA, a fir! +enaed principall# in the recruit!ent of
8ilipino "or)ers, !ale and fe!ale, for overseas place!ent,+
1
challenes
the Constitutional validit# of %epart!ent :rder No. 3, -eries of 3466, of the %epart!ent of &abor and
E!plo#!ent, in the character of +9C1%E&1NE- 9:VERN1N9 $(E $EMP:RARN -C-PEN-1:N :8
%EP&:NMEN$ :8 81&1P1N: %:ME-$1C AN% (:C-E(:&% /:ROER-,+ in this petition for certiorari
and prohibition. -pecificall#, the !easure is assailed for +discri!ination aainst !ales or fe!alesL+
4
that it
+does not appl# to all 8ilipino "or)ers but onl# to do!estic helpers and fe!ales "ith si!ilar s)illsL+
3
and
that it is violative of the riht to travel. 1t is held li)e"ise to be an invalid e'ercise of the la"!a)in po"er,
police po"er bein leislative, and not e'ecutive, in character.
1n its supple!ent to the petition, PA-E1 invo)es -ection 2, of Article
K111, of the Constitution, providin for "or)er participation +in polic#
and decision-!a)in processes affectin their rihts and benefits as
!a# be provided b# la".+
5
%epart!ent :rder No. 3, it is contended, "as passed in the
absence of prior consultations. 1t is clai!ed, finall#, to be in violation of the Charter>s non-i!pair!ent
clause, in addition to the +reat and irreparable in,ur#+ that PA-E1 !e!bers face should the :rder be
further enforced.
:n Ma# ?B, 3466, the -olicitor 9eneral, on behalf of the respondents
-ecretar# of &abor and Ad!inistrator of the Philippine :verseas
E!plo#!ent Ad!inistration, filed a Co!!ent infor!in the Court that
on March 6, 3466, the respondent &abor -ecretar# lifted the
deplo#!ent ban in the states of 1ra., Jordan, Matar, Canada,
(on)on, Cnited -tates, 1tal#, Nor"a#, Austria, and -"it*erland. < 1n
sub!ittin the validit# of the challened +uidelines,+ the -olicitor 9eneral invo)es the police po"er of the Philippine -tate.
1t is ad!itted that %epart!ent :rder No. 3 is in the nature of a police
po"er !easure. $he onl# .uestion is "hether or not it is valid under
the Constitution.
$he concept of police po"er is "ell-established in this ,urisdiction. 1t
has been defined as the +state authorit# to enact leislation that !a#
interfere "ith personal libert# or propert# in order to pro!ote the
eneral "elfare.+
6
As defined, it consists of @3A an i!position of restraint upon libert# or propert#,
@?A in order to foster the co!!on ood. 1t is not capable of an e'act definition but has been, purposel#,
veiled in eneral ter!s to underscore its all-co!prehensive e!brace.
+1ts scope, ever-e'pandin to !eet the e'iencies of the ti!es, even
to anticipate the future "here it could be done, provides enouh roo!
for an efficient and fle'ible response to conditions and circu!stances
thus assurin the reatest benefits.+
7
1t finds no specific Constitutional rant for the plain reason that it does
not o"e its oriin to the Charter. Alon "ith the ta'in po"er and
e!inent do!ain, it is inborn in the ver# fact of statehood and
sovereint#. 1t is a funda!ental attribute of overn!ent that has
enabled it to perfor! the !ost vital functions of overnance. Marshall,
to "ho! the e'pression has been credited,
7
refers to it succinctl# as the plenar#
po"er of the -tate +to overn its citi*ens.+
8
+$he police po"er of the -tate ... is a po"er coe'tensive "ith self-
protection, and it is not inaptl# ter!ed the +la" of over"hel!in
necessit#.+ 1t !a# be said to be that inherent and plenar# po"er in the
-tate "hich enables it to prohibit all thins hurtful to the co!fort,
safet#, and "elfare of societ#.+
9
1t constitutes an i!plied li!itation on the Bill of Rihts. Accordin to
8ernando, it is +rooted in the conception that !en in orani*in the
state and i!posin upon its overn!ent li!itations to safeuard
constitutional rihts did not intend thereb# to enable an individual
citi*en or a roup of citi*ens to obstruct unreasonabl# the enact!ent
of such salutar# !easures calculated to ensure co!!unal peace,
safet#, ood order, and "elfare.+
10
-inificantl#, the Bill of Rihts itself does not purport
to be an absolute uarant# of individual rihts and liberties +Even libert# itself, the reatest of all rihts, is
not unrestricted license to act accordin to one>s "ill.+
11
1t is sub,ect to the far !ore overridin de!ands
and re.uire!ents of the reater nu!ber.
Not"ithstandin its e'tensive s"eep, police po"er is not "ithout its
o"n li!itations. 8or all its a"eso!e conse.uences, it !a# not be
e'ercised arbitraril# or unreasonabl#. :ther"ise, and in that event, it
defeats the purpose for "hich it is e'ercised, that is, to advance the
public ood. $hus, "hen the po"er is used to further private interests
at the e'pense of the citi*enr#, there is a clear !isuse of the po"er.
14
1n the liht of the foreoin, the petition !ust be dis!issed.
As a eneral rule, official acts en,o# a presu!ed vahdit#.
13
1n the absence of
clear and convincin evidence to the contrar#, the presu!ption loicall# stands.
$he petitioner has sho"n no satisfactor# reason "h# the contested
!easure should be nullified. $here is no .uestion that %epart!ent
:rder No. 3 applies onl# to +fe!ale contract "or)ers,+
15
but it does not
thereb# !a)e an undue discri!ination bet"een the se'es. 1t is "ell-settled that +e.ualit# before the la"+
under the Constitution
16
does not i!port a perfect 1dentit# of rihts a!on all !en and "o!en. 1t ad!its
of classifications, provided that @3A such classifications rest on substantial distinctionsL @?A the# are
er!ane to the purposes of the la"L @2A the# are not confined to e'istin conditionsL and @;A the# appl#
e.uall# to all !e!bers of the sa!e class.
17
$he Court is satisfied that the classification !ade-the preference for
fe!ale "or)ers P rests on substantial distinctions.
As a !atter of ,udicial notice, the Court is "ell a"are of the unhapp#
pliht that has befallen our fe!ale labor force abroad, especiall#
do!estic servants, a!id e'ploitative "or)in conditions !ar)ed b#, in
not a fe" cases, ph#sical and personal abuse. $he sordid tales of
!altreat!ent suffered b# !irant 8ilipina "or)ers, even rape and
various for!s of torture, confir!ed b# testi!onies of returnin
"or)ers, are co!pellin !otives for urent 9overn!ent action. As
precisel# the careta)er of Constitutional rihts, the Court is called
upon to protect victi!s of e'ploitation. 1n fulfillin that dut#, the Court
sustains the 9overn!ent>s efforts.
$he sa!e, ho"ever, cannot be said of our !ale "or)ers. 1n the first
place, there is no evidence that, e'cept perhaps for isolated instances,
our !en abroad have been afflicted "ith an 1dentical predica!ent.
$he petitioner has proffered no aru!ent that the 9overn!ent should
act si!ilarl# "ith respect to !ale "or)ers. $he Court, of course, is not
i!pressin so!e !ale chauvinistic notion that !en are superior to
"o!en. /hat the Court is sa#in is that it "as larel# a !atter of
evidence @that "o!en do!estic "or)ers are bein ill-treated abroad in
!assive instancesA and not upon so!e fanciful or arbitrar# #ardstic)
that the 9overn!ent acted in this case. 1t is evidence capable indeed
of un.uestionable de!onstration and evidence this Court accepts.
$he Court cannot, ho"ever, sa# the sa!e thin as far as !en are
concerned. $here is si!pl# no evidence to ,ustif# such an inference.
-uffice it to state, then, that insofar as classifications are concerned,
this Court is content that distinctions are borne b# the evidence.
%iscri!ination in this case is ,ustified.
As "e have further!ore indicated, e'ecutive deter!inations are
enerall# final on the Court. Cnder a republican rei!e, it is the
e'ecutive branch that enforces polic#. 8or their part, the courts decide,
in the proper cases, "hether that polic#, or the !anner b# "hich it is
i!ple!ented, arees "ith the Constitution or the la"s, but it is not for
the! to .uestion its "isdo!. As a co-e.ual bod#, the ,udiciar# has
reat respect for deter!inations of the Chief E'ecutive or his
subalterns, especiall# "hen the leislature itself has specificall# iven
the! enouh roo! on ho" the la" should be effectivel# enforced. 1n
the case at bar, there is no ainsa#in the fact, and the Court "ill deal
"ith this at reater lenth shortl#, that %epart!ent :rder No. 3
i!ple!ents the rule-!a)in po"ers ranted b# the &abor Code. But
"hat should be noted is the fact that in spite of such a fiction of finalit#,
the Court is on its o"n persuaded that prevailin conditions indeed
call for a deplo#!ent ban.
$here is li)e"ise no doubt that such a classification is er!ane to the
purpose behind the !easure. Cn.uestionabl#, it is the avo"ed
ob,ective of %epart!ent :rder No. 3 to +enhance the protection for
8ilipino fe!ale overseas "or)ers+
17
this Court has no .uarrel that in the !idst of the
terrible !istreat!ent 8ilipina "or)ers have suffered abroad, a ban on deplo#!ent "ill be for their o"n
ood and "elfare.
$he :rder does not narro"l# appl# to e'istin conditions. Rather, it is
intended to appl# indefinitel# so lon as those conditions e'ist. $his is
clear fro! the :rder itself @+Pendin revie" of the ad!inistrative and
leal !easures, in the Philippines and in the host countries . . .+
18
A,
!eanin to sa# that should the authorities arrive at a !eans i!pressed "ith a reater deree of
per!anenc#, the ban shall be lifted. As a stop-ap !easure, it is possessed of a necessar# !alleabilit#,
dependin on the circu!stances of each case. Accordinl#, it provides0
4. &18$1N9 :8 -C-PEN-1:N. P $he -ecretar# of &abor
and E!plo#!ent @%:&EA !a#, upon reco!!endation of
the Philippine :verseas E!plo#!ent Ad!inistration
@P:EAA, lift the suspension in countries "here there are0
3. Bilateral aree!ents or understandin "ith the
Philippines, andJor,
?. E'istin !echanis!s providin for sufficient safeuards
to ensure the "elfare and protection of 8ilipino "or)ers.
19
$he Court finds, finall#, the i!puned uidelines to be applicable to all
fe!ale do!estic overseas "or)ers. $hat it does not appl# to +all
8ilipina "or)ers+
40
is not an aru!ent for unconstitutionalit#. (ad the ban been iven universal
applicabilit#, then it "ould have been unreasonable and arbitrar#. 8or obvious reasons, not all of the! are
si!ilarl# circu!stanced. /hat the Constitution prohibits is the sinlin out of a select person or roup of
persons "ithin an e'istin class, to the pre,udice of such a person or roup or resultin in an unfair
advantae to another person or roup of persons. $o appl# the ban, sa# e'clusivel# to "or)ers deplo#ed
b# A, but not to those recruited b# B, "ould obviousl# clash "ith the e.ual protection clause of the
Charter. 1t "ould be a classic case of "hat Chase refers to as a la" that +ta)es propert# fro! A and ives
it to B.+
41
1t "ould be an unla"ful invasion of propert# rihts and freedo! of contract and needless to
state, an invalid act.
44
@8ernando sa#s0 +/here the classification is based on such distinctions that !a)e
a real difference as infanc#, se', and stae of civili*ation of !inorit# roups, the better rule, it "ould see!,
is to reconi*e its validit# onl# if the #oun, the "o!en, and the cultural !inorities are sinled out for
favorable treat!ent. $here "ould be an ele!ent of unreasonableness if on the contrar# their status that
calls for the la" !inisterin to their needs is !ade the basis of discri!inator# leislation aainst the!. 1f
such be the case, it "ould be difficult to refute the assertion of denial of e.ual protection.+
43
1n the case at
bar, the assailed :rder clearl# accords protection to certain "o!en "or)ers, and not the contrar#.A
1t is incorrect to sa# that %epart!ent :rder No. 3 prescribes a total
ban on overseas deplo#!ent. 8ro! scattered provisions of the :rder,
it is evident that such a total ban has hot been conte!plated. /e
.uote0
B. AC$(:R17E% %EP&:NMEN$-$he deplo#!ent of
do!estic helpers and "or)ers of si!ilar s)ills defined
herein to the follo"in GsicH are authori*ed under these
uidelines and are e'e!pted fro! the suspension.
B.3 (irins b# i!!ediate !e!bers of the fa!il#
of (eads of -tate and 9overn!entL
B.? (irins b# Minister, %eput# Minister and the
other senior overn!ent officialsL and
B.2 (irins b# senior officials of the diplo!atic
corps and dul# accredited international
orani*ations.
B.; (irins b# e!plo#ers in countries "ith "ho!
the Philippines have GsicH bilateral labor
aree!ents or understandin.
''' ''' '''
=. VACA$1:N1N9 %:ME-$1C (E&PER- AN% /:ROER-
:8 -1M1&AR -O1&&---Vacationin do!estic helpers andJor
"or)ers of si!ilar s)ills shall be allo"ed to process "ith the
P:EA and leave for "or)site onl# if the# are returnin to
the sa!e e!plo#er to finish an e'istin or partiall# served
e!plo#!ent contract. $hose "or)ers returnin to "or)site
to serve a ne" e!plo#er shall be covered b# the
suspension and the provision of these uidelines.
''' ''' '''
4. &18$1N9 :8 -C-PEN-1:N-$he -ecretar# of &abor and
E!plo#!ent @%:&EA !a#, upon reco!!endation of the
Philippine :verseas E!plo#!ent Ad!inistration @P:EAA,
lift the suspension in countries "here there are0
3. Bilateral aree!ents or understandin "ith
the Philippines, andJor,
?. E'istin !echanis!s providin for sufficient
safeuards to ensure the "elfare and protection
of 8ilipino "or)ers.
45
''' ''' '''
$he conse.uence the deplo#!ent ban has on the riht to travel does
not i!pair the riht. $he riht to travel is sub,ect, a!on other thins,
to the re.uire!ents of +public safet#,+ +as !a# be provided b#
la".+
46
%epart!ent :rder No. 3 is a valid i!ple!entation of the &abor Code, in particular, its basic
polic# to +afford protection to labor,+
47
pursuant to the respondent %epart!ent of &abor>s rule-!a)in
authorit# vested in it b# the &abor Code.
47
$he petitioner assu!es that it is unreasonable si!pl# because
of its i!pact on the riht to travel, but as "e have stated, the riht itself is not absolute. $he disputed
:rder is a valid .ualification thereto.
Neither is there !erit in the contention that %epart!ent :rder No. 3
constitutes an invalid e'ercise of leislative po"er. 1t is true that police
po"er is the do!ain of the leislature, but it does not !ean that such
an authorit# !a# not be la"full# deleated. As "e have !entioned,
the &abor Code itself vests the %epart!ent of &abor and E!plo#!ent
"ith rule!a)in po"ers in the enforce!ent "hereof.
48
$he petitioners>s reliance on the Constitutional uarant# of "or)er
participation +in polic# and decision-!a)in processes affectin their
rihts and benefits+
49
is not "ell-ta)en. $he riht ranted b# this provision, aain, !ust sub!it
to the de!ands and necessities of the -tate>s po"er of reulation.
$he Constitution declares that0
-ec. 2. $he -tate shall afford full protection to labor, local
and overseas, orani*ed and unorani*ed, and pro!ote
full e!plo#!ent and e.ualit# of e!plo#!ent opportunities
for all.
30
+Protection to labor+ does not sinif# the pro!otion of e!plo#!ent
alone. /hat concerns the Constitution !ore para!ountl# is that such
an e!plo#!ent be above all, decent, ,ust, and hu!ane. 1t is bad
enouh that the countr# has to send its sons and dauhters to strane
lands because it cannot satisf# their e!plo#!ent needs at ho!e.
Cnder these circu!stances, the 9overn!ent is dut#-bound to insure
that our toilin e'patriates have ade.uate protection, personall# and
econo!icall#, "hile a"a# fro! ho!e. 1n this case, the 9overn!ent
has evidence, an evidence the petitioner cannot seriousl# dispute, of
the lac) or inade.uac# of such protection, and as part of its dut#, it has
precisel# ordered an indefinite ban on deplo#!ent.
$he Court finds further!ore that the 9overn!ent has not
indiscri!inatel# !ade use of its authorit#. 1t is not contested that it has
in fact re!oved the prohibition "ith respect to certain countries as
!anifested b# the -olicitor 9eneral.
$he non-i!pair!ent clause of the Constitution, invo)ed b# the
petitioner, !ust #ield to the loftier purposes taretted b# the
9overn!ent.
31
8reedo! of contract and enterprise, li)e all other freedo!s, is not free fro!
restrictions, !ore so in this ,urisdiction, "here laisse/ faire has never been full# accepted as a controllin
econo!ic "a# of life.
$his Court understands the rave i!plications the .uestioned :rder
has on the business of recruit!ent. $he concern of the 9overn!ent,
ho"ever, is not necessaril# to !aintain profits of business fir!s. 1n the
ordinar# se.uence of events, it is profits that suffer as a result of
9overn!ent reulation. $he interest of the -tate is to provide a decent
livin to its citi*ens. $he 9overn!ent has convinced the Court in this
case that this is its intent. /e do not find the i!puned :rder to be
tainted "ith a rave abuse of discretion to "arrant the e'traordinar#
relief pra#ed for.
/(ERE8:RE, the petition is %1-M1--E%. No costs.
-: :R%ERE%.
0ap ".1. Fernan 2arvasa #elencio-!errera "ru/ )aras Feliciano
Ganca*co )adilla 3idin "ortes and Gri4o-A%uino 11. concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15739 M!r-% 46, 1919
.ACARIAS ILLAICENCIO, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
JUSTO LU?+AN, ET AL., respondents.
Alfonso #endo/a for petitioners.
"it* Fiscal 5ia/ for respondents.
MALCOLM, J.=
$he annals of ,uridical histor# fail to reveal a case .uite as re!ar)able
as the one "hich this application forha(eas corpus sub!its for
decision. /hile hardl# to be e'pected to be !et "ith in this !odern
epoch of triu!phant de!ocrac#, #et, after all, the cause presents no
reat difficult# if there is )ept in the forefront of our !inds the basic
principles of popular overn!ent, and if "e ive e'pression to the
para!ount purpose for "hich the courts, as an independent po"er of
such a overn!ent, "ere constituted. $he pri!ar# .uestion is 6 -hall
the ,udiciar# per!it a overn!ent of the !en instead of a overn!ent
of la"s to be set up in the Philippine 1slandsQ
:!ittin !uch e'traneous !atter, of no !o!ent to these
proceedins, but "hich !iht prove profitable readin for other
depart!ents of the overn!ent, the facts are these0 $he Ma#or of the
cit# of Manila, Justo &u)ban, for the best of all reasons, to e'ter!inate
vice, ordered the sereated district for "o!en of ill repute, "hich had
been per!itted for a nu!ber of #ears in the cit# of Manila, closed.
Bet"een :ctober 35 and :ctober ?B, 3436, the "o!en "ere )ept
confined to their houses in the district b# the police. Presu!abl#,
durin this period, the cit# authorities .uietl# perfected arrane!ents
"ith the Bureau of &abor for sendin the "o!en to %avao, Mindanao,
as laborersL "ith so!e overn!ent office for the use of the
coastuard cutters "orregidor and 2egros, and "ith the Constabular#
for a uard of soldiers. At an# rate, about !idniht of :ctober ?B, the
police, actin pursuant to orders fro! the chief of police, Anton
(oh!ann and the Ma#or of the cit# of Manila, Justo &u)ban,
descended upon the houses, hustled so!e 3=< in!ates into patrol
"aons, and placed the! aboard the stea!ers that a"aited their
arrival. $he "o!en "ere iven no opportunit# to collect their
belonins, and apparentl# "ere under the i!pression that the# "ere
bein ta)en to a police station for an investiation. $he# had no
)no"lede that the# "ere destined for a life in Mindanao. $he# had
not been as)ed if the# "ished to depart fro! that reion and had
neither directl# nor indirectl# iven their consent to the deportation.
$he involuntar# uests "ere received on board the stea!ers b# a
representative of the Bureau of &abor and a detach!ent of
Constabular# soldiers. $he t"o stea!ers "ith their un"illin
passeners sailed for %avao durin the niht of :ctober ?B.
$he vessels reached their destination at %avao on :ctober ?4. $he
"o!en "ere landed and receipted for as laborers b# 8rancisco -ales,
provincial overnor of %avao, and b# 8eliciano NRio and Rafael
Castillo. $he overnor and the hacendero NRio, "ho appear as
parties in the case, had no previous notification that the "o!en "ere
prostitutes "ho had been e'pelled fro! the cit# of Manila. $he further
happenins to these "o!en and the serious chares ro"in out of
alleed ill-treat!ent are of public interest, but are not essential to the
disposition of this case. -uffice it to sa#, enerall#, that so!e of the
"o!en !arried, others assu!ed !ore or less clandestine relations
"ith !en, others "ent to "or) in different capacities, others assu!ed
a life un)no"n and disappeared, and a oodl# portion found !eans to
return to Manila.
$o turn bac) in our narrative, ,ust about the ti!e the "orregidor and
the 2egros "ere puttin in to %avao, the attorne# for the relatives and
friends of a considerable nu!ber of the deportees presented an
application forha(eas corpus to a !e!ber of the -upre!e Court.
-ubse.uentl#, the application, throuh stipulation of the parties, "as
!ade to include all of the "o!en "ho "ere sent a"a# fro! Manila to
%avao and, as the sa!e .uestions concerned the! all, the application
"ill be considered as includin the!. $he application set forth the
salient facts, "hich need not be repeated, and alleed that the "o!en
"ere illeall# restrained of their libert# b# Justo &u)ban, Ma#or of the
cit# of Manila, Anton (oh!ann, chief of police of the cit# of Manila,
and b# certain un)no"n parties. $he "rit "as !ade returnable before
the full court. $he cit# fiscal appeared for the respondents, &u)ban
and (oh!ann, ad!itted certain facts relative to se.uestration and
deportation, and pra#ed that the "rit should not be ranted because
the petitioners "ere not proper parties, because the action should
have been beun in the Court of 8irst 1nstance for %avao, %epart!ent
of Mindanao and -ulu, because the respondents did not have an# of
the "o!en under their custod# or control, and because their
,urisdiction did not e'tend be#ond the boundaries of the cit# of Manila.
Accordin to an e'hibit attached to the ans"er of the fiscal, the 3=<
"o!en "ere destined to be laborers, at ood salaries, on
the haciendas of NRio and 9overnor -ales. 1n open court, the fiscal
ad!itted, in ans"er to .uestion of a !e!ber of the court, that these
"o!en had been sent out of Manila "ithout their consent. $he court
a"arded the "rit, in an order of Nove!ber ;, that directed Justo
&u)ban, Ma#or of the cit# of Manila, Anton (oh!ann, chief of police of
the cit# of Manila, 8rancisco -ales, overnor of the province of %avao,
and 8eliciano NRio, an hacendero of %avao, to brin before the court
the persons therein na!ed, alleed to be deprived of their libert#, on
%ece!ber ?, 3436.
Before the date !entioned, seven of the "o!en had returned to
Manila at their o"n e'pense. :n !otion of counsel for petitioners,
their testi!on# "as ta)en before the cler) of the -upre!e Court sittin
as co!!issioners. :n the da# na!ed in the order, %ece!ber ?nd,
3436, none of the persons in "hose behalf the "rit "as issued "ere
produced in court b# the respondents. 1t has been sho"n that three of
those "ho had been able to co!e bac) to Manila throuh their o"n
efforts, "ere notified b# the police and the secret service to appear
before the court. $he fiscal appeared, repeated the facts !ore
co!prehensivel#, reiterated the stand ta)en b# hi! "hen pleadin to
the oriinal petition copied a telera! fro! the Ma#or of the cit# of
Manila to the provincial overnor of %avao and the ans"er thereto,
and telera!s that had passed bet"een the %irector of &abor and the
attorne# for that Bureau then in %avao, and offered certain affidavits
sho"in that the "o!en "ere contained "ith their life in Mindanao
and did not "ish to return to Manila. Respondents -ales ans"ered
allein that it "as not possible to fulfill the order of the -upre!e
Court because the "o!en had never been under his control, because
the# "ere at libert# in the Province of %avao, and because the# had
!arried or sined contracts as laborers. Respondent NRio ans"ered
allein that he did not have an# of the "o!en under his control and
that therefore it "as i!possible for hi! to obe# the !andate. $he
court, after due deliberation, on %ece!ber 3<, 3436, pro!ulated a
second order, "hich related that the respondents had not co!plied
"ith the oriinal order to the satisfaction of the court nor e'plained
their failure to do so, and therefore directed that those of the "o!en
not in Manila be brouht before the court b# respondents &u)ban,
(oh!ann, -ales, and NRio on Januar# 32, 3434, unless the "o!en
should, in "ritten state!ents voluntaril# !ade before the ,ude of first
instance of %avao or the cler) of that court, renounce the riht, or
unless the respondents should de!onstrate so!e other leal !otives
that !ade co!pliance i!possible. 1t "as further stated that the
.uestion of "hether the respondents "ere in conte!pt of court "ould
later be decided and the reasons for the order announced in the final
decision.
Before Januar# 32, 3434, further testi!on# includin that of a nu!ber
of the "o!en, of certain detectives and police!en, and of the
provincial overnor of %avao, "as ta)en before the cler) of the
-upre!e Court sittin as co!!issioner and the cler) of the Court of
8irst 1nstance of %avao actin in the sa!e capacit#. :n Januar# 32,
3434, the respondents technicall# presented before the Court the
"o!en "ho had returned to the cit# throuh their o"n efforts and
eiht others "ho had been brouht to Manila b# the respondents.
Attorne#s for the respondents, b# their returns, once aain recounted
the facts and further endeavored to account for all of the persons
involved in the ha(eas corpus. 1n substance, it "as stated that the
respondents, throuh their representatives and aents, had
succeeded in brinin fro! %avao "ith their consent eiht "o!enL
that eiht#-one "o!en "ere found in %avao "ho, on notice that if the#
desired the# could return to Manila, transportation fee, renounced the
riht throuh s"orn state!entsL that fift#-nine had alread# returned to
Manila b# other !eans, and that despite all efforts to find the! t"ent#-
si' could not be located. Both counsel for petitioners and the cit# fiscal
"ere per!itted to sub!it !e!oranda. $he first for!all# as)ed the
court to find Justo &u)ban, Ma#or of the cit# of Manila, Anton
(oh!ann, chief of police of the cit# of Manila, Jose Rodriue* and
8ernando :rda', !e!bers of the police force of the cit# of Manila,
8eliciano NRio, an hacendero of %avao, Modesto Joa.uin, the
attorne# for the Bureau of &abor, and Anacleto %ia*, fiscal of the cit#
of Manila, in conte!pt of court. $he cit# fiscal re.uested that
the replica al 'e'orandu' de los recurridos, @repl# to respondents>
!e!orandu!A dated Januar# ?B, 3434, be struc) fro! the record.
1n the second order, the court pro!ised to ive the reasons for
rantin the "rit of ha(eas corpus in the final decision. /e "ill no"
proceed to do so.
:ne fact, and one fact onl#, need be recalled 6 these one hundred
and sevent# "o!en "ere isolated fro! societ#, and then at niht,
"ithout their consent and "ithout an# opportunit# to consult "ith
friends or to defend their rihts, "ere forcibl# hustled on board
stea!ers for transportation to reions un)no"n. %espite the feeble
atte!pt to prove that the "o!en left voluntaril# and ladl#, that such
"as not the case is sho"n b# the !ere fact that the presence of the
police and the constabular# "as dee!ed necessar# and that these
officers of the la" chose the shades of niht to cloa) their secret and
stealth# acts. 1ndeed, this is a fact i!possible to refute and practicall#
ad!itted b# the respondents.
/ith this situation, a court "ould ne't e'pect to resolve the
.uestion 6 B# authorit# of "hat la" did the Ma#or and the Chief of
Police presu!e to act in deportin b# duress these persons fro!
Manila to another distant localit# "ithin the Philippine 1slandsQ /e turn
to the statutes and "e find P
Alien prostitutes can be e'pelled fro! the Philippine 1slands in
confor!it# "ith an Act of conress. $he 9overnor-9eneral can order
the eviction of undesirable aliens after a hearin fro! the 1slands. Act
No. B34 of the Philippine Co!!ission and section =22 of the Revised
:rdinances of the cit# of Manila provide for the conviction and
punish!ent b# a court of ,ustice of an# person "ho is a co!!on
prostitute. Act No. 644 authori*es the return of an# citi*en of the
Cnited -tates, "ho !a# have been convicted of varanc#, to the
ho!eland. Ne" Nor) and other -tates have statutes providin for the
co!!it!ent to the (ouse of Refue of "o!en convicted of bein
co!!on prostitutes. Al"a#s a la"S Even "hen the health authorities
co!pel vaccination, or establish a .uarantine, or place a leprous
person in the Culion leper colon#, it is done pursuant to so!e la" or
order. But one can search in vain for an# la", order, or reulation,
"hich even hints at the riht of the Ma#or of the cit# of Manila or the
chief of police of that cit# to force citi*ens of the Philippine
1slands 6 and these "o!en despite their bein in a sense lepers of
societ# are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citi*ens protected
b# the sa!e constitutional uaranties as are other citi*ens 6 to
chane their do!icile fro! Manila to another localit#. :n the contrar#,
Philippine penal la" specificall# punishes an# public officer "ho, not
bein e'pressl# authori*ed b# la" or reulation, co!pels an# person
to chane his residence.
1n other countries, as in -pain and Japan, the privilee of do!icile is
dee!ed so i!portant as to be found in the Bill of Rihts of the
Constitution. Cnder the A!erican constitutional s#ste!, libert# of
abode is a principle so deepl# i!bedded in ,urisprudence and
considered so ele!entar# in nature as not even to re.uire a
constitutional sanction. Even the 9overnor-9eneral of the Philippine
1slands, even the President of the Cnited -tates, "ho has often been
said to e'ercise !ore po"er than an# )in or potentate, has no such
arbitrar# preroative, either inherent or e'press. Much less, therefore,
has the e'ecutive of a !unicipalit#, "ho acts "ithin a sphere of
deleated po"ers. 1f the !a#or and the chief of police could, at their
!ere behest or even for the !ost praise"orth# of !otives, render the
libert# of the citi*en so insecure, then the presidents and chiefs of
police of one thousand other !unicipalities of the Philippines have the
sa!e privilee. 1f these officials can ta)e to the!selves such po"er,
then an# other official can do the sa!e. And if an# official can e'ercise
the po"er, then all persons "ould have ,ust as !uch riht to do so.
And if a prostitute could be sent aainst her "ishes and under no la"
fro! one localit# to another "ithin the countr#, then officialdo! can
hold the sa!e club over the head of an# citi*en.
&a" defines po"er. Centuries ao Mana Charta decreed that 6 +No
free!an shall be ta)en, or i!prisoned, or be dissei*ed of his freehold,
or liberties, or free custo!s, or be outla"ed, or e'iled, or an# other
"ise destro#edL nor "ill "e pass upon hi! nor conde!n hi!, but b#
la"ful ,ud!ent of his peers or b# the la" of the land. /e "ill sell to
no !an, "e "ill not den# or defer to an# !an either ,ustice or riht.+
@Mana Charta, 4 (en., 333, 3??B, Cap. ?4L 3 en. stat. at &are, =.A
No official, no !atter ho" hih, is above the la". $he courts are the
foru! "hich functionate to safeuard individual libert# and to punish
official transressors. +$he la",+ said Justice Miller, deliverin the
opinion of the -upre!e Court of the Cnited -tates, +is the onl#
supre!e po"er in our s#ste! of overn!ent, and ever# !an "ho b#
acceptin office participates in its functions is onl# the !ore stronl#
bound to sub!it to that supre!ac#, and to observe the li!itations
"hich it i!poses upon the e'ercise of the authorit# "hich it ives.+
@C.-. vs. &ee G366?H, 3<5 C.-., 345, ??<.A +$he ver# idea,+ said Justice
Matthe"s of the sa!e hih tribunal in another case, +that one !an
!a# be co!pelled to hold his life, or the !eans of livin, or an#
!aterial riht essential to the en,o#!ent of life, at the !ere "ill of
another, see!s to be intolerable in an# countr# "here freedo!
prevails, as bein the essence of slaver# itself.+ @Nic) /o vs. (op)ins
G3665H, 336 C.-., 2B5, 2=<.A All this e'plains the !otive in issuin the
"rit of ha(eas corpus, and !a)es clear "h# "e said in the ver#
beinnin that the pri!ar# .uestion "as "hether the courts should
per!it a overn!ent of !en or a overn!ent of la"s to be
established in the Philippine 1slands.
/hat are the re!edies of the unhapp# victi!s of official oppressionQ
$he re!edies of the citi*en are three0 @3A Civil actionL @?A cri!inal
action, and @2A ha(eas corpus.
$he first is an optional but rather slo" process b# "hich the arieved
part# !a# recoup !one# da!aes. 1t !a# still rest "ith the parties in
interest to pursue such an action, but it "as never intended effectivel#
and pro!ptl# to !eet an# such situation as that no" before us.
As to cri!inal responsibilit#, it is true that the Penal Code in force in
these 1slands provides0
An# public officer not thereunto authori*ed b# la" or b#
reulations of a eneral character in force in the Philippines "ho
shall banish an# person to a place !ore than t"o hundred
)ilo!eters distant fro! his do!icile, e'cept it be b# virtue of the
,ud!ent of a court, shall be punished b# a fine of not less than
three hundred and t"ent#-five and not !ore than three thousand
t"o hundred and fift# pesetas.
An# public officer not thereunto e'pressl# authori*ed b# la" or
b# reulation of a eneral character in force in the Philippines
"ho shall co!pel an# person to chane his do!icile or
residence shall suffer the penalt# of destierro and a fine of not
less than si' hundred and t"ent#-five and not !ore than si'
thousand t"o hundred and fift# pesetas. @Art. ?33.A
/e entertain no doubt but that, if, after due investiation, the proper
prosecutin officers find that an# public officer has violated this
provision of la", these prosecutors "ill institute and press a cri!inal
prosecution ,ust as viorousl# as the# have defended the sa!e official
in this action. Nevertheless, that the act !a# be a cri!e and that the
persons uilt# thereof can be proceeded aainst, is no bar to the
instant proceedins. $o .uote the "ords of Jude Coole# in a case
"hich "ill later be referred to 6 +1t "ould be a !onstrous ano!al# in
the la" if to an application b# one unla"full# confined, ta be restored
to his libert#, it could be a sufficient ans"er that the confine!ent "as a
cri!e, and therefore !iht be continued indefinitel# until the uilt#
part# "as tried and punished therefor b# the slo" process of cri!inal
procedure.+ @1n the !atter of Jac)son G365=H, 3B Mich., ;35, ;2;.A $he
"rit of ha(eas corpus "as devised and e'ists as a speed# and
effectual re!ed# to relieve persons fro! unla"ful restraint, and as the
best and onl# sufficient defense of personal freedo!. An# further
rihts of the parties are left untouched b# decision on the "rit, "hose
principal purpose is to set the individual at libert#.
9ranted that ha(eas corpus is the proper re!ed#, respondents have
raised three specific ob,ections to its issuance in this instance. $he
fiscal has arued @lA that there is a defect in parties petitioners, @?A that
the -upre!e Court should not a assu!e ,urisdiction, and @2A that the
person in .uestion are not restrained of their libert# b# respondents. 1t
"as finall# suested that the ,urisdiction of the Ma#or and the chief of
police of the cit# of Manila onl# e'tends to the cit# li!its and that
perforce the# could not brin the "o!en fro! %avao.
$he first defense "as not presented "ith an# vior b# counsel. $he
petitioners "ere relatives and friends of the deportees. $he "a# the
e'pulsion "as conducted b# the cit# officials !ade it i!possible for
the "o!en to sin a petition for ha(eas corpus. 1t "as conse.uentl#
proper for the "rit to be sub!itted b# persons in their behalf. @Code of
Cri!inal Procedure, sec. =6L Code of Civil Procedure, sec. B?=.A $he
la", in its *ealous reard for personal libert#, even !a)es it the dut# of
a court or ,ude to rant a "rit of ha(eas corpus if there is evidence
that "ithin the court>s ,urisdiction a person is un,ustl# i!prisoned or
restrained of his libert#, thouh no application be !ade therefor. @Code
of Cri!inal Procedure, sec. 42.A Petitioners had standin in court.
$he fiscal ne't contended that the "rit should have been as)ed for in
the Court of 8irst 1nstance of %avao or should have been !ade
returnable before that court. 1t is a eneral rule of ood practice that,
to avoid unnecessar# e'pense and inconvenience, petitions
for ha(eas corpus should be presented to the nearest ,ude of the
court of first instance. But this is not a hard and fast rule. $he "rit
of ha(eas corpus !a# be ranted b# the -upre!e Court or an# ,ude
thereof enforcible an#"here in the Philippine 1slands. @Code of
Cri!inal Procedure, sec. =4L Code of Civil Procedure, sec. B?5.A
/hether the "rit shall be !ade returnable before the -upre!e Court
or before an inferior court rests in the discretion of the -upre!e Court
and is dependent on the particular circu!stances. 1n this instance it
"as not sho"n that the Court of 8irst 1nstance of %avao "as in
session, or that the "o!en had an# !eans b# "hich to advance their
plea before that court. :n the other hand, it "as sho"n that the
petitioners "ith their attorne#s, and the t"o oriinal respondents "ith
their attorne#, "ere in ManilaL it "as sho"n that the case involved
parties situated in different parts of the 1slandsL it "as sho"n that the
"o!en !iht still be i!prisoned or restrained of their libert#L and it
"as sho"n that if the "rit "as to acco!plish its purpose, it !ust be
ta)en coni*ance of and decided i!!ediatel# b# the appellate court.
$he failure of the superior court to consider the application and then to
rant the "rit "ould have a!ounted to a denial of the benefits of the
"rit.
$he last aru!ent of the fiscal is !ore plausible and !ore difficult to
!eet. /hen the "rit "as pra#ed for, sa#s counsel, the parties in
"hose behalf it "as as)ed "ere under no restraintL the "o!en, it is
clai!ed, "ere free in %avao, and the ,urisdiction of the !a#or and the
chief of police did not e'tend be#ond the cit# li!its. At first blush, this
is a tenable position. :n closer e'a!ination, acceptance of such
dictu! is found to be perversive of the first principles of the "rit
of ha(eas corpus.
A pri!e specification of an application for a "rit of ha(eas corpus is
restraint of libert#. $he essential ob,ect and purpose of the "rit
of ha(eas corpus is to in.uire into all !anner of involuntar# restraint
as distinuished fro! voluntar#, and to relieve a person therefro! if
such restraint is illeal. An# restraint "hich "ill preclude freedo! of
action is sufficient. $he forcible ta)in of these "o!en fro! Manila b#
officials of that cit#, "ho handed the! over to other parties, "ho
deposited the! in a distant reion, deprived these "o!en of freedo!
of loco!otion ,ust as effectivel# as if the# had been i!prisoned.
Placed in %avao "ithout either !one# or personal belonins, the#
"ere prevented fro! e'ercisin the libert# of oin "hen and "here
the# pleased. $he restraint of libert# "hich bean in Manila continued
until the arieved parties "ere returned to Manila and released or
until the# freel# and trul# "aived his riht.
Consider for a !o!ent "hat an aree!ent "ith such a defense "ould
!ean. $he chief e'ecutive of an# !unicipalit# in the Philippines could
forcibl# and illeall# ta)e a private citi*en and place hi! be#ond the
boundaries of the !unicipalit#, and then, "hen called upon to defend
his official action, could cal!l# fold his hands and clai! that the
person "as under no restraint and that he, the official, had no
,urisdiction over this other !unicipalit#. /e believe the true principle
should be that, if the respondent is "ithin the ,urisdiction of the court
and has it in his po"er to obe# the order of the court and thus to undo
the "ron that he has inflicted, he should be co!pelled to do so. Even
if the part# to "ho! the "rit is addressed has illeall# parted "ith the
custod# of a person before the application for the "rit is no reason
"h# the "rit should not issue. 1f the !a#or and the chief of police,
actin under no authorit# of la", could deport these "o!en fro! the
cit# of Manila to %avao, the sa!e officials !ust necessaril# have the
sa!e !eans to return the! fro! %avao to Manila. $he respondents,
"ithin the reach of process, !a# not be per!itted to restrain a fello"
citi*en of her libert# b# forcin her to chane her do!icile and to avo"
the act "ith i!punit# in the courts, "hile the person "ho has lost her
birthriht of libert# has no effective recourse. $he reat "rit of libert#
!a# not thus be easil# evaded.
1t !ust be that so!e such .uestion has heretofore been presented to
the courts for decision. Nevertheless, strane as it !a# see!, a close
e'a!ination of the authorities fails to reveal an# analoous case.
Certain decisions of respectable courts are ho"ever ver# persuasive
in nature.
A .uestion ca!e before the -upre!e Court of the -tate of Michian at
an earl# date as to "hether or not a "rit ofha(eas corpus "ould issue
fro! the -upre!e Court to a person "ithin the ,urisdiction of the -tate
to brin into the -tate a !inor child under uardianship in the -tate,
"ho has been and continues to be detained in another -tate. $he
!e!bership of the Michian -upre!e Court at this ti!e "as notable.
1t "as co!posed of Martin, chief ,ustice, and Coole#, Ca!pbell, and
Christianc#, ,ustices. :n the .uestion presented the court "as e.uall#
divided. Ca!pbell, J., "ith "ho! concurred Martin, C. J., held that the
"rit should be .uashed. Coole#, J., one of the !ost distinuished
A!erican ,udes and la"-"riters, "ith "ho! concurred Christianc#,
J., held that the "rit should issue. -ince the opinion of Justice
Ca!pbell "as predicated to a lare e'tent on his conception of the
Enlish decisions, and since, as "ill hereafter appear, the Enlish
courts have ta)en a contrar# vie", onl# the follo"in elo.uent
passaes fro! the opinion of Justice Coole# are .uoted0
1 have not #et seen sufficient reason to doubt the po"er of this
court to issue the present "rit on the petition "hich "as laid
before us. . . .
1t "ould be strane indeed if, at this late da#, after the euloiu!s
of si' centuries and a half have been e'pended upon the Mana
Charta, and rivers of blood shed for its establish!entL after its
!an# confir!ations, until Co)e could declare in his speech on
the petition of riht that +Mana Charta "as such a fello" that he
"ill have no soverein,+ and after the e'tension of its benefits
and securities b# the petition of riht, bill of rihts and ha(eas
corpus acts, it should no" be discovered that evasion of that
reat clause for the protection of personal libert#, "hich is the life
and soul of the "hole instru!ent, is so eas# as is clai!ed here.
1f it is so, it is i!portant that it be deter!ined "ithout dela#, that
the leislature !a# appl# the proper re!ed#, as 1 can not doubt
the# "ould, on the sub,ect bein brouht to their notice. . . .
$he second proposition 6 that the statutor# provisions are
confined to the case of i!prison!ent "ithin the state 6 see!s
to !e to be based upon a !isconception as to the source of our
,urisdiction. 1t "as never the case in Enland that the court of
)in>s bench derived its ,urisdiction to issue and enforce this "rit
fro! the statute. -tatutes "ere not passed to ive the riht, but
to co!pel the observance of rihts "hich e'isted. . . .
$he i!portant fact to be observed in reard to the !ode of
procedure upon this "rit is, that it is directed to and served upon,
not the person confined, but his ,ailor. 1t does not reach the
for!er e'cept throuh the latter. $he officer or person "ho
serves it does not unbar the prison doors, and set the prisoner
free, but the court relieves hi! b# co!pellin the oppressor to
release his constraint. $he "hole force of the "rit is spent upon
the respondent, and if he fails to obe# it, the !eans to be
resorted to for the purposes of co!pulsion are fine and
i!prison!ent. $his is the ordinar# !ode of affordin relief, and if
an# other !eans are resorted to, the# are onl# au'iliar# to those
"hich are usual. 7he place of confine'ent is therefore not
i'portant to the relief if the guilt* part* is &ithin reach of
process so that (* the po&er of the court he can (e co'pelled
to release his grasp. $he difficult# of affordin redress is not
increased b# the confine!ent bein be#ond the li!its of the
state, e'cept as reater distance !a# affect it. $he i!portant
.uestion is, "here the po"er of control e'ercisedQ And 1 a!
a"are of no other re!ed#. @1n the !atter of Jac)son G365=H, 3B
Mich., ;35.A
$he opinion of Jude Coole# has since been accepted as authoritative
b# other courts. @Rivers vs. Mitchell G3663H, B= 1o"a, 342L
Breene vs. People G3433H, Colo., 33= Pac. Rep., 3<<<L Ex parte Noun
G364?H, B< 8ed., B?5.A
$he Enlish courts have iven careful consideration to the sub,ect.
$hus, a child had been ta)en out of Enlish b# the respondent. A "rit
of ha(eas corpus "as issued b# the Mueen>s Bench %ivision upon the
application of the !other and her husband directin the defendant to
produce the child. $he ,ude at cha!bers ave defendant until a
certain date to produce the child, but he did not do so. (is return
stated that the child before the issuance of the "rit had been handed
over b# hi! to anotherL that it "as no loner in his custod# or control,
and that it "as i!possible for hi! to obe# the "rit. (e "as found in
conte!pt of court. :n appeal, the court, throuh &ord Esher, M. R.,
said0
A "rit of ha(eas corpus "as ordered to issue, and "as issued on
Januar# ??. $hat "rit co!!anded the defendant to have the
bod# of the child before a ,ude in cha!bers at the Ro#al Courts
of Justice i!!ediatel# after the receipt of the "rit, toether "ith
the cause of her bein ta)en and detained. 7hat is a co''and
to (ring the child (efore the judge and 'ust (e o(e*ed unless
so'e la&ful reason can (e sho&n to excuse the nonproduction
of the child. .f it could (e sho&n that (* reason of his having
la&full* parted &ith the possession of the child (efore the issuing
of the &rit the defendant had no longer po&er to produce the
child that 'ight (e an ans&er8 (ut in the a(sence of an* la&ful
reason he is (ound to produce the child and if he does not he
is in conte'pt of the "ourt for not o(e*ing the &rit &ithout la&ful
excuse. Man# efforts have been !ade in aru!ent to shift the
.uestion of conte!pt to so!e anterior period for the purpose of
sho"in that "hat "as done at so!e ti!e prior to the "rit cannot
be a conte!pt. But the .uestion is not as to "hat "as done
before the issue of the "rit. $he .uestion is "hether there has
been a conte!pt in disobe#in the "rit it "as issued b# not
producin the child in obedience to its co!!ands. @$he
Mueen vs. Bernardo G3664H, ?2 M. B. %., 2<B. -ee also to the
sa!e effect the 1rish case of .n re Matthe"s, 3? 1r. Co!. &a"
Rep. GN. -.H, ?22L $he Mueen vs. Barnardo, 9ossae>s Case
G364<H, ?; M. B. %., ?62.A
A decision co!in fro! the 8ederal Courts is also of interest.
A ha(eas corpus "as directed to the defendant to have before the
circuit court of the %istrict of Colu!bia three colored persons, "ith the
cause of their detention. %avis, in his return to the "rit, stated on oath
that he had purchased the neroes as slaves in the cit# of
/ashintonL that, as he believed, the# "ere re!oved be#ond the
%istrict of Colu!bia before the service of the "rit of ha(eas corpus,
and that the# "ere then be#ond his control and out of his custod#. $he
evidence tended to sho" that %avis had re!oved the neroes
because he suspected the# "ould appl# for a "rit of ha(eas corpus.
$he court held the return to be evasive and insufficient, and that %avis
"as bound to produce the neroes, and %avis bein present in court,
and refusin to produce the!, ordered that he be co!!itted to the
custod# of the !arshall until he should produce the neroes, or be
other"ise dischared in due course of la". $he court after"ards
ordered that %avis be released upon the production of t"o of the
neroes, for one of the neroes had run a"a# and been loded in ,ail
in Mar#land. %avis produced the t"o neroes on the last da# of the
ter!. @Cnited -tates vs. %avis G3624H, B Cranch C.C., 5??, 8ed. Cas.
No. 3;4?5. -ee also Robb vs. Connoll# G3662H, 333 C.-., 5?;L Church
on (abeas, ?nd ed., p. 3=<.A
/e find, therefore, both on reason and authorit#, that no one of the
defense offered b# the respondents constituted a leiti!ate bar to the
rantin of the "rit of ha(eas corpus.
$here re!ains to be considered "hether the respondent co!plied
"ith the t"o orders of the -upre!e Court a"ardin the "rit of ha(eas
corpus, and if it be found that the# did not, "hether the conte!pt
should be punished or be ta)en as pured.
$he first order, it "ill be recalled, directed Justo &u)ban, Anton
(oh!ann, 8rancisco -ales, and 8eliciano NRio to present the
persons na!ed in the "rit before the court on %ece!ber ?, 3436. $he
order "as dated Nove!ber ;, 3436. $he respondents "ere thus iven
a!ple ti!e, practicall# one !onth, to co!pl# "ith the "rit. As far as
the record discloses, the Ma#or of the cit# of Manila "aited until the
?3st of Nove!ber before sendin a telera! to the provincial
overnor of %avao. Accordin to the response of the attorne# for the
Bureau of &abor to the telera! of his chief, there "ere then in %avao
"o!en "ho desired to return to Manila, but "ho should not be
per!itted to do so because of havin contracted debts. $he half-
hearted effort naturall# resulted in none of the parties in .uestion
bein brouht before the court on the da# na!ed.
8or the respondents to have fulfilled the court>s order, three optional
courses "ere open0 @3A $he# could have produced the bodies of the
persons accordin to the co!!and of the "ritL or @?A the# could have
sho"n b# affidavit that on account of sic)ness or infir!it# those
persons could not safel# be brouht before the courtL or @2A the# could
have presented affidavits to sho" that the parties in .uestion or their
attorne# "aived the riht to be present. @Code of Cri!inal Procedure,
sec. 6=.A $he# did not produce the bodies of the persons in "hose
behalf the "rit "as rantedL the# did not sho" i!possibilit# of
perfor!anceL and the# did not present "ritins that "aived the riht to
be present b# those interested. 1nstead a fe" stereot#ped affidavits
purportin to sho" that the "o!en "ere contended "ith their life in
%avao, so!e of "hich have since been repudiated b# the siners,
"ere appended to the return. $hat throuh ordinar# dilience a
considerable nu!ber of the "o!en, at least si't#, could have been
brouht bac) to Manila is de!onstrated to be found in the !unicipalit#
of %avao, and that about this nu!ber either returned at their o"n
e'pense or "ere produced at the second hearin b# the respondents.
$he court, at the ti!e the return to its first order "as !ade, "ould
have been "arranted su!!aril# in findin the respondents uilt# of
conte!pt of court, and in sendin the! to ,ail until the# obe#ed the
order. $heir e'cuses for the non-production of the persons "ere far
fro! sufficient. $he, authorities cited herein pertainin to so!e"hat
si!ilar facts all tend to indicate "ith "hat e'actitude a ha(eas
corpus "rit !ust be fulfilled. 8or e'a!ple, in 9ossae>s case, supra,
the Maistrate in referrin to an earlier decision of the Court, said0
+9e thought that having (rought a(out that state of things (* his o&n
illegal act he 'ust ta:e the conse%uencesL and "e said that he "as
bound to use ever# effort to et the child bac)L that he !ust do !uch
!ore than "rite letters for the purposeL that he !ust advertise in
A!erica, and even if necessar# hi!self o after the child, and do
ever#thin that !ortal !an could do in the !atterL and that the court
"ould onl# accept clear proof of an absolute i!possibilit# b# "a# of
e'cuse.+ 1n other "ords, the return did not sho" that ever# possible
effort to produce the "o!en "as !ade b# the respondents. $hat the
court forebore at this ti!e to ta)e drastic action "as because it did not
"ish to see presented to the public a*e the spectacle of a clash
bet"een e'ecutive officials and the ,udiciar#, and because it desired to
ive the respondents another chance to de!onstrate their ood faith
and to !itiate their "ron.
1n response to the second order of the court, the respondents appear
to have beco!e !ore *ealous and to have sho"n a better spirit.
Aents "ere dispatched to Mindanao, placards "ere posted, the
constabular# and the !unicipal police ,oined in roundin up the
"o!en, and a stea!er "ith free transportation to Manila "as
provided. /hile chares and counter-chares in such a bitterl#
contested case are to be e'pected, and "hile a critical readin of the
record !iht reveal a failure of literal fulfill!ent "ith our !andate, "e
co!e to conclude that there is a substantial co!pliance "ith it. :ur
findin to this effect !a# be influenced so!e"hat b# our sincere
desire to see this unhapp# incident finall# closed. 1f an# "ron is no"
bein perpetrated in %avao, it should receive an e'ecutive
investiation. 1f an# particular individual is still restrained of her libert#,
it can be !ade the ob,ect of separateha(eas corpus proceedins.
-ince the "rit has alread# been ranted, and since "e find a
substantial co!pliance "ith it, nothin further in this connection
re!ains to be done.
$he attorne# for the petitioners as)s that "e find in conte!pt of court
Justo &u)ban, Ma#or of the cit# of Manila, Anton (oh!ann, chief of
police of the cit# of Manila, Jose Rodriue*, and 8ernando :rda',
!e!bers of the police force of the cit# of Manila, Modesto Joa.uin,
the attorne# for the Bureau of &abor, 8eliciano NRio, an hacenderoof
%avao, and Anacleto %ia*, 8iscal of the cit# of Manila.
$he po"er to punish for conte!pt of court should be e'ercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle. :nl# occasionall#
should the court invo)e its inherent po"er in order to retain that
respect "ithout "hich the ad!inistration of ,ustice !ust falter or fail.
Nevertheless "hen one is co!!anded to produce a certain person
and does not do so, and does not offer a valid e'cuse, a court !ust, to
vindicate its authorit#, ad,ude the respondent to be uilt# of
conte!pt, and !ust order hi! either i!prisoned or fined. An officer>s
failure to produce the bod# of a person in obedience to a "rit
of ha(eas corpus "hen he has po"er to do so, is a conte!pt
co!!itted in the face of the court. @Ex parte -terns G3666H, == Cal.,
3B5L 1n re Patterson G3666H, 44 N. C., ;<=.A
/ith all the facts and circu!stances in !ind, and "ith ,udicial reard
for hu!an i!perfections, "e cannot sa# that an# of the respondents,
"ith the possible e'ception of the first na!ed, has flatl# disobe#ed the
court b# actin in opposition to its authorit#. Respondents (oh!ann,
Rodriue*, :rda', and Joa.uin onl# follo"ed the orders of their chiefs,
and "hile, under the la" of public officers, this does not e'onerate
the! entirel#, it is nevertheless a po"erful !itiatin circu!stance.
$he hacendero NRio appears to have been dra"n into the case
throuh a !isconstruction b# counsel of teleraphic co!!unications.
$he cit# fiscal, Anacleto %ia*, "ould see! to have done no !ore than
to fulfill his dut# as the leal representative of the cit# overn!ent.
8indin hi! innocent of an# disrespect to the court, his counter-!otion
to stri)e fro! the record the !e!orandu! of attorne# for the
petitioners, "hich brins hi! into this undesirable position, !ust be
ranted. /hen all is said and done, as far as this record discloses, the
official "ho "as pri!aril# responsible for the unla"ful deportation, "ho
ordered the police to acco!plish the sa!e, "ho !ade arrane!ents
for the stea!ers and the constabular#, "ho conducted the
neotiations "ith the Bureau of &abor, and "ho later, as the head of
the cit# overn!ent, had it "ithin his po"er to facilitate the return of
the unfortunate "o!en to Manila, "as Justo &u)ban, the Ma#or of the
cit# of Manila. (is intention to suppress the social evil "as
co!!endable. (is !ethods "ere unla"ful. (is reard for the "rit
ofha(eas corpus issued b# the court "as onl# tardil# and reluctantl#
ac)no"leded.
1t "ould be possible to turn to the provisions of section B;5 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, "hich relates to the penalt# for disobe#in
the "rit, and in pursuance thereof to re.uire respondent &u)ban to
forfeit to the parties arieved as !uch as P;<< each, "hich "ould
reach to !an# thousands of pesos, and in addition to deal "ith hi! as
for a conte!pt. -o!e !e!bers of the court are inclined to this stern
vie". 1t "ould also be possible to find that since respondent &u)ban
did co!pl# substantiall# "ith the second order of the court, he has
pured his conte!pt of the first order. -o!e !e!bers of the court are
inclined to this !erciful vie". Bet"een the t"o e'tre!es appears to lie
the correct findin. $he failure of respondent &u)ban to obe# the first
!andate of the court tended to belittle and e!barrass the
ad!inistration of ,ustice to such an e'tent that his later activit# !a# be
considered onl# as e'tenuatin his conduct. A no!inal fine "ill at once
co!!and such respect "ithout bein undul# oppressive 6such an
a!ount is P3<<.
1n resu!e 6 as before stated, no further action on the "rit of ha(eas
corpus is necessar#. $he respondents (oh!ann, Rodriue*, :rda',
Joa.uin, NRio, and %ia* are found not to be in conte!pt of court.
Respondent &u)ban is found in conte!pt of court and shall pa# into
the office of the cler) of the -upre!e Court "ithin five da#s the su! of
one hundred pesos @P3<<A. $he !otion of the fiscal of the cit# of
Manila to stri)e fro! the record theReplica al #e'orandu' de los
Recurridos of Januar# ?B, 3434, is ranted. Costs shall be ta'ed
aainst respondents. -o ordered.
1n concludin this tedious and disareeable tas), !a# "e not be
per!itted to e'press the hope that this decision !a# serve to bul"ar)
the fortifications of an orderl# overn!ent of la"s and to protect
individual libert# fro! illeal encroach!ent.
Arellano ".1. Avance4a and #oir 11. concur.
1ohnson and Street 11. concur in the result.
Sep!r!te Op&'&o'"
TORRES, J., dissentin0
$he undersined does not entirel# aree to the opinion of the !a,orit#
in the decision of the ha(eas corpusproceedin aainst Justo &u)ban,
the !a#or of this cit#.
$here is nothin in the record that sho"s the !otive "hich i!pelled
Ma#or &u)ban to oblie a reat nu!ber of "o!en of various aes,
in!ates of the houses of prostitution situated in 9ardenia -treet,
district of -a!paloc, to chane their residence.
/e )no" no e'press la", reulation, or ordinance "hich clearl#
prohibits the openin of public houses of prostitution, as those in the
said 9ardenia -treet, -a!paloc. 8or this reason, "hen !ore than one
hundred and fift# "o!en "ere asse!bled and placed aboard a
stea!er and transported to %avao, considerin that the e'istence of
the said houses of prostitution has been tolerated for so lon a ti!e, it
is undeniable that the !a#or of the cit#, in proceedin in the !anner
sho"n, acted "ithout authorit# of an# leal provision "hich constitutes
an e'ception to the la"s uaranteein the libert# and the individual
rihts of the residents of the cit# of Manila.
/e do not believe in the po!p and obstentation of force displa#ed b#
the police in co!pl#in "ith the order of the !a#or of the cit#L neither
do "e believe in the necessit# of ta)in the! to the distant district of
%avao. $he said overn!ental authorit#, in carr#in out his intention to
suppress the sereated district or the co!!unit# for!ed b# those
"o!en in 9ardenia -treet, could have oblied the said "o!en to
return to their for!er residences in this cit# or in the provinces, "ithout
the necessit# of transportin the! to MindanaoL hence the said official
is oblied to brin bac) the "o!en "ho are still in %avao so that the#
!a# return to the places in "hich the# lived prior to their beco!in
in!ates of certain houses in 9ardenia -treet.
As reards the !anner "hereb# the !a#or co!plied "ith the orders of
this court, "e do not find an# apparent disobedience and !ar)ed
absence of respect in the steps ta)en b# the !a#or of the cit# and his
subordinates, if "e ta)e into account the difficulties encountered in
brinin the said "o!en "ho "ere free at %avao and presentin the!
before this court "ithin the ti!e fi'ed, inas!uch as it does not appear
that the said "o!en "ere livin toether in a iven place. 1t "as not
because the# "ere reall# detained, but because on the first da#s there
"ere no houses in "hich the# could live "ith a relative independent
fro! one another, and as a proof that the# "ere free a nu!ber of the!
returned to Manila and the others succeeded in livin separate fro!
their co!panions "ho continued livin toether.
$o deter!ine "hether or not the !a#or acted "ith a ood purpose and
leal ob,ect and "hether he has acted in ood or bad faith in
proceedin to dissolve the said co!!unit# of prostitutes and to oblie
the! to chane their do!icile, it is necessar# to consider not onl# the
rihts and interests of the said "o!en and especiall# of the patrons
"ho have been directin and conductin such a reproachable
enterprise and sha!eful business in one of the suburbs of this cit#, but
also the rihts and interests of the ver# nu!erous people of Manila
"here relativel# a fe" transients accidentall# and for so!e da#s
reside, the inhabitants thereof bein !ore than three hundred
thousand @2<<,<<<A "ho can not, "ith indifference and "ithout
repunance, live in the sa!e place "ith so !an# unfortunate "o!en
dedicated to prostitution.
1f the !aterial and !oral interests of the co!!unit# as "ell as the
de!ands of social !oralit# are to be ta)en into account, it is not
possible to sustain that it is leal and per!issible to establish a house
of panderin or prostitution in the !idst of an enlihtened population,
for, althouh there "ere no positive la"s prohibitin the e'istence of
such houses "ithin a district of Manila, the dictates of co!!on sense
and dictates of conscience of its inhabitants are sufficient to "arrant
the public ad!inistration, actin correctl#, in e'ercisin the inevitable
dut# of orderin the closin and abandon!ent of a house of
prostitution ostensibl# open to the public, and of obliin the in!ates
thereof to leave it, althouh such a house is inhabited b# its true
o"ner "ho invo)es in his behalf the protection of the constitutional la"
uaranteein his libert#, his individual rihts, and his riht to propert#.
A cholera patient, a leper, or an# other person affected b# a )no"n
contaious disease cannot invo)e in his favor the constitutional la"
"hich uarantees his libert# and individual rihts, should the
ad!inistrative authorit# order his hospitali*ation, reclusion, or
concentration in a certain island or distant point in order to free fro!
contaious the reat !a,orit# of the inhabitants of the countr# "ho
fortunatel# do not have such diseases. $he sa!e reasons e'ist or
stand ood "ith respect to the unfortunate "o!en dedicated to
prostitution, and such reasons beco!e stroner because the first
persons na!ed have contracted their diseases "ithout their
)no"lede and even aainst their "ill, "hereas the unfortunate
prostitutes voluntaril# adopted such !anner of livin and
spontaneousl# accepted all its conse.uences, )no"in positivel# that
their constant intercourse "ith !en of all classes, not"ithstandin the
cleanliness and precaution "hich the# are "ont to adopt, ives "a# to
the spread or !ultiplication of the disease )no"n as s#philis, a
venereal disease, "hich, althouh it constitutes a secret disease
a!on !en and "o!en, is still pre,udicial to the hu!an species in the
sa!e deree, scope, and seriousness as cholera, tuberculosis,
lepros#, pest, t#phoid, and other contaious diseases "hich produce
reat !ortalit# and ver# serious pre,udice to poor hu!anit#.
1f a #oun "o!an, instead of enain in an occupation or "or)s
suitable to her se', "hich can ive her sufficient re!uneration for her
subsistence, prefers to put herself under the "ill of another "o!an
"ho is usuall# older than she is and "ho is the !anaer or o"ner of a
house of prostitution, or spontaneousl# dedicates herself to this
sha!eful profession, it is undeniable that she voluntaril# and "ith her
o"n )no"lede renounces her libert# and individual rihts uaranteed
b# the Constitution, because it is evident that she can not ,oin the
societ# of decent "o!en nor can she e'pect to et the sa!e respect
that is due to the latter, nor is it possible for her to live "ithin the
co!!unit# or societ# "ith the sa!e libert# and rihts en,o#ed b#
ever# citi*en. Considerin her dishonorable conduct and life, she
should therefore be co!prised "ithin that class "hich is al"a#s
sub,ect to the police and sanitar# reulations conducive to the
!aintenance of public decenc# and !oralit# and to the conservation
of public health, and for this reason it should not per!itted that the
unfortunate "o!en dedicated to prostitution evade the ,ust orders and
resolutions adopted b# the ad!inistrative authorities.
1t is rerettable that unnecessar# rior "as e!plo#ed aainst the said
poor "o!en, but those "ho have been "orr#in so !uch about the
pre,udice resultin fro! a overn!ental !easure, "hich bein a ver#
drastic re!ed# !a# be considered arbitrar#, have failed to consider
"ith due reflection the interests of the inhabitants of this cit# in eneral
and particularl# the duties and responsibilities "eihin upon the
authorities "hich ad!inister and overn itL the# have forotten that
!an# of those "ho critici*e and censure the !a#or are fathers of
fa!ilies and are in dut# bound to ta)e care of their children.
8or the foreoin reasons, "e reach the conclusion that "hen the
petitioners, because of the abnor!al life the# assu!ed, "ere oblied
to chane their residence not b# a private citi*en but b# the !a#or of
the cit# "ho is directl# responsible for the conservation of public health
and social !oralit#, the latter could ta)e the step he had ta)en,
availin hi!self of the services of the police in ood faith and onl# "ith
the purpose of protectin the i!!ense !a,orit# of the population fro!
the social evils and diseases "hich the houses of prostitution situated
in 9ardenia -treet have been producin, "hich houses have been
constitutin for #ears a true center for the propaation of eneral
diseases and other evils derived therefro!. (ence, in orderin the
dissolution and abandon!ent of the said houses of prostitution and
the chane of the do!icile of the in!ates thereof, the !a#or did not in
bad faith violate the constitutional la"s "hich uarantees the libert#
and the individual rihts of ever# 8ilipino, inas!uch as the "o!en
petitioners do not absolutel# en,o# the said libert# and rihts, the
e'ercise of "hich the# have voluntaril# renounced in e'chane for the
free practice of their sha!eful profession.
1n ver# hihl# advanced and civili*ed countries, there have been
adopted b# the ad!inistrative authorities si!ilar !easures, !ore or
less riorous, respectin prostitutes, considerin the! pre,udicial to
the people, althouh it is true that in the e'ecution of such !easures
!ore hu!ane and less drastic procedures, fortiter in re et suaviter in
for'a, have been adopted, but such procedures have al"a#s had in
vie" the ulti!ate ob,ect of the 9overn!ent for the sa)e of the
co!!unit#, that is, puttin an end to the livin toether in a certain
place of "o!en dedicated to prostitution and chanin their do!icile,
"ith the proble!atical hope that the# adopt another !anner of livin
"hich is better and !ore useful to the!selves and to societ#.
1n vie" of the foreoin re!ar)s, "e should hold, as "e hereb# hold,
that Ma#or Justo &u)ban is oblied to ta)e bac) and restore the said
"o!en "ho are at present found in %avao, and "ho desire to return
to their for!er respective residences, not in 9ardenia -treet,
-a!paloc %istrict, "ith the e'ception of the prostitutes "ho should
e'pressl# !a)e )no"n to the cler) of court their preference to reside
in %avao, "hich !anifestation !ust be !ade under oath. $his
resolution !ust be trans!itted to the !a#or "ithin the shortest ti!e
possible for its due co!pliance. $he costs shall be chared de officio.
ARAULLO, J., dissentin in part0
1 reret to dissent fro! the respectable opinion of the !a,orit# in the
decision rendered in these proceedins, "ith respect to the findin as
to the i!portance of the conte!pt co!!itted, accordin to the sa!e
decision, b# Justo &u)ban, Ma#or of the cit# of Manila, and the
conse.uent i!position upon hi! of a no!inal fine of P3<<.
1n the said decision, it is said0
$he first order, it "ill be recalled, directed Justo &u)ban, Anton
(oh!ann, 8rancisco -ales, and 8eliciano NRio to present the
persons na!ed in the "rit before the court on %ece!ber ?,
3436. $he order "as dated Nove!ber ;, 3436. $he respondents
"ere thus iven a!ple ti!e, practicall# one !onth, to co!pl#
"ith the "rit. As far as the record disclosed, the !a#or of the cit#
of Manila "aited until the ?3st of Nove!ber before sendin a
telera! to the provincial overnor of %avao. Accordin to the
response of the Attorne# for the Bureau of &abor to the telera!
of his chief, there "ere then in %avao "o!en "ho desired to
return to Manila, but "ho should not be per!itted to do so
because of havin contracted debts. $he half-hearted effort
naturall# resulted in none of the parties in .uestion bein brouht
before the court on the da# na!ed.
1n accordance "ith section 6= of 9eneral :rders No. B6, as said in the
sa!e decision, the respondents, for the purpose of co!pl#in "ith the
order of the court, could have, @3A produced the bodies of the persons
accordin to the co!!and of the "ritL @?A sho"n b# affidavits that on
account of sic)ness or infir!it# the said "o!en could not safel# be
brouht before this courtL and @2A presented affidavits to sho" that the
parties in .uestion or their la"#ers "aived their riht to be present.
Accordin to the sa!e decision, the said respondents +. . . did not
produce the bodies of the persons in "hose behalf the "rit "as
rantedL did not sho" i!possibilit# of perfor!anceL and did not
present "ritins, that "aived the riht to be present b# those
interested. 1nstead, a fe" stereot#ped affidavits purportin to sho"
that the "o!en "ere contented "ith their life in %avao, so!e of "hich
have since been repudiated b# the siners, "ere appended to the
return. $hat throuh ordinar# dilience a considerable nu!ber of the
"o!en, at least si't#, could have been brouht bac) to Manila is
de!onstrated b# the fact that durin this ti!e the# "ere easil# to be
found in the !unicipalit# of %avao, and that about this nu!ber either
returned at their o"n e'pense or "ere produced at the second hearin
b# the respondents.+
$he !a,orit# opinion also reconi*ed that, +$hat court, at the ti!e the
return to its first order "as !ade, "ould have been "arranted
su!!aril# in findin the respondent uilt# of conte!pt of court, and in
sendin the! to ,ail until the# obe#ed the order. $heir e'cuses for the
non production of the persons "ere far fro! sufficient.+ $o corroborate
this, the !a,orit# decision cites the case of the Mueen vs. Barnardo,
9ossae>s Case @G364<H, ?; M. B. %., ?62A and added +that the return
did not sho" that ever# possible effort to produce the "o!en "as
!ade b# the respondents.+
/hen the said return b# the respondents "as !ade to this court in
banc and the case discussed, !# opinion "as that Ma#or &u)ban
should have been i!!ediatel# punished for conte!pt. Nevertheless, a
second order referred to in the decision "as issued on %ece!ber 3<,
3436, re.uirin the respondents to produce before the court, on
Januar# 32, 3434, the "o!en "ho "ere not in Manila, unless the#
could sho" that it "as i!possible to co!pl# "ith the said order on the
t"o rounds previousl# !entioned. /ith respect to this second order,
the sa!e decision has the follo"in to sa#0
1n response to the second order of the court, the respondents
appear to have beco!e !ore *ealous and to have sho"n a
better spirit. Aents "ere dispatched to Mindanao, placards "ere
posted, the constabular# and the !unicipal police ,oined in
roundin up the "o!en, and a stea!er "ith free transportation
to Manila "as provided. /hile chares and counterchares in
such a bitterl# contested case are to be e'pected, and "hile a
critical readin of the record !iht reveal a failure of literal
fulfill!ent "ith our !andate, "e co!e to conclude that there is a
substantial co!pliance "ith it.
1 do not aree to this conclusion.
$he respondent !a#or of the cit# of Manila, Justo &u)ban, let 3= da#s
elapse fro! the date of the issuance of the first order on Nove!ber
;th till the ?3st of the sa!e !onth before ta)in the first step for
co!pliance "ith the !andate of the said orderL he "aited till the ?3st
of Nove!ber, as the decision sa#s, before he sent a telera! to the
provincial overnor o f %avao and naturall# this half-hearted effort, as
is so .ualified in the decision, resulted in that none of the "o!en
appeared before this court on %ece!ber ?nd. $hus, the said order
"as not co!plied "ith, and in addition to this nonco!pliance there
"as the circu!stances that seven of the said "o!en havin returned
to Manila at their o"n e'pense before the said second da# of
%ece!ber and bein in the antecha!ber of the court roo!, "hich fact
"as )no"n to Chief of Police (oh!ann, "ho "as then present at the
trial and to the attorne# for the respondents, "ere not produced before
the court b# the respondents nor did the latter sho" an# effort to
present the!, in spite of the fact that their attention "as called to this
particular b# the undersined.
$he result of the said second order "as, as is said in the sa!e
decision, that the respondents, on Januar# 32th, the da# fi'ed for the
protection of the "o!en before this court, presented technicall# the
seven @=A "o!en above-!entioned "ho had returned to the cit# at
their o"n e'pense and the other eiht @6A "o!en "ho! the
respondents the!selves brouht to Manila, allein !oreover that
their aents and subordinates succeeded in brinin the! fro! %avao
"ith their consentL that in %avao the# found eiht#-one @63A "o!en
"ho, "hen as)ed if the# desired to return to Manila "ith free
transportation, renounced such a riht, as is sho"n in the affidavits
presented b# the respondents to this effectL that, throuh other !eans,
fift#-nine @B4A "o!en have alread# returned to Manila, but
not"ithstandin the efforts !ade to find the! it "as not possible to
locate the "hereabouts of t"ent#-si' @?5A of the!. $hus, in short, out
of the one hundred and eiht#-one @363A "o!en "ho, as has been
previousl# said, have been illeall# detained b# Ma#or &u)ban and
Chief of Police (oh!ann and transported to %avao aainst their "ill,
onl# eiht @6A have been brouht to Manila and presented before this
court b# the respondents in co!pliance "ith the said t"o orders. 8ift#-
nine @B4A of the! have returned to Manila throuh other !eans not
furnished b# the respondents, t"ent#-si' of "ho! "ere brouht b# the
attorne# for the petitioners, Mendo*a, on his return fro! %avao. $he
said attorne# paid out of his o"n poc)et the transportation of the said
t"ent#-si' "o!en. Addin to these nu!bers the other seven @=A
"o!en "ho returned to this cit# at their o"n e'pense before Januar#
32 "e have a total of si't#-si' @55A, "hich evidentl# proves, on the one
hand, the falsit# of the alleation b# the respondents in their first
ans"er at the trial of %ece!ber ?, 3436, ivin as one of the reasons
for their inabilit# to present an# of the said "o!en that the latter "ere
content "ith their life in Mindanao and did not desire to return to
ManilaL and, on the other hand, that the respondents, especiall# the
first na!ed, that is Ma#or Justo &u)ban, "ho acted as chief and
principal in all that refers to the co!pliance "ith the orders issued b#
this court, could brin before %ece!ber ?nd, the date of the first
hearin of the case, as "ell as before Januar# 32th, the date fi'ed for
the co!pliance "ith the second order, if not the sevent#-four @=;A
"o!en alread# indicated, at least a reat nu!ber of the!, or at least
si't# @5<A of the!, as is said in the !a,orit# decision, inas!uch as the
said respondent could count upon the aid of the Constabular# forces
and the !unicipal police, and had transportation facilities for the
purpose. But the said respondent !a#or brouht onl# eiht @6A of the
"o!en before this court on Januar# 32th. $his fact can not, in !#
,ud!ent, "ith due respect to the !a,orit# opinion, ,ustif# the
conclusion that the said respondent has substantiall# co!plied "ith
the second order of this court, but on the other hand de!onstrates
that he had not co!plied "ith the !andate of this court in its first and
second ordersL that neither of the said orders has been co!plied "ith
b# the respondent Justo &u)ban, Ma#or of the cit# of Manila, "ho is,
accordin to the !a,orit# decision, principall# responsible for the
conte!pt, to "hich conclusion 1 aree. $he conduct of the said
respondent "ith respect to the second order confir!s the conte!pt
co!!itted b# non-co!pliance "ith the first order and constitutes a
ne" conte!pt because of non-co!pliance "ith the second, because
of the production of onl# eiht @6A of the one hundred and eiht#-one
@363A "o!en "ho have been illeall# detained b# virtue of his order
and transported to %avao aainst their "ill, co!!ittin the t"ent#-si'
@?5A "o!en "ho could not be found in %avao, de!onstrates in !#
opinion that, not"ithstandin the nature of the case "hich deals "ith
the re!ed# of ha(eas corpus, presented b# the petitioners and
involvin the .uestion "hether the# should or not be ranted their
libert#, the respondent has not iven due attention to the sa!e nor
has he !ade an# effort to co!pl# "ith the second order. 1n other
"ords, he has disobe#ed the said t"o ordersL has despised the
authorit# of this courtL has failed to ive the respect due to ,usticeL and
lastl#, he has created and placed obstacles to the ad!inistration of
,ustice in the said ha(eas corpus proceedin, thus preventin,
because of his notorious disobedience, the resolution of the said
proceedin "ith the pro!ptness "hich the nature of the sa!e
re.uired.
Conte!pt of court has been defined as a despisin of the
authorit#, ,ustice, or dinit# of the courtL and he is uilt# of
conte!pt "hose conduct is such as tends to brin the authorit#
and ad!inistration of the la" into disrespect or disreard. . . .+
@Rulin Case &a", vol. 5, p. ;66.A
1t is a eneral principle that a disobedience of an# valid order of
the court constitutes conte!pt, unless the defendant is unable to
co!pl# there"ith. @Rulin Case &a", vol. 5, p. B<?.A
1t is conte!pt to e!plo# a subterfue to evade the ,ud!ent of
the court, or to obstruct or atte!pt to obstruct the service of leal
process. 1f a person hinders or prevents the service of process
b# deceivin the officer or circu!ventin hi! b# an# !eans, the
result is the sa!e as thouh he had obstructed b# so!e direct
!eans. @Rulin Case &a", vol. 5, p. B<2.A
/hile it !a# see! so!e"hat inconruous to spea), as the
courts often do, of enforcin respect for the la" and for the
!eans it has provided in civili*ed co!!unities for establishin
,ustice, since true respect never co!es in that "a#, it is apparent
nevertheless that the po"er to enforce decoru! in the courts
and obedience to their orders and ,ust !easures is so essentiall#
a part of the life of the courts that it "ould be difficult to conceive
of their usefulness or efficienc# as e'istin "ithout it. $herefore it
!a# be said enerall# that "here due respect for the courts as
!inisters of the la" is "antin, a necessit# arises for the use of
co!pulsion, not, ho"ever, so !uch to e'cite individual respect
as to co!pel obedience or to re!ove an unla"ful or un"arranted
interference "ith the ad!inistration of ,ustice. @Rulin Case &a",
vol. 5, p. ;6=.A
$he po"er to punish for conte!pt is as old as the la" itself, and
has been e'ercised fro! the earliest ti!es. 1n Enland it has
been e'erted "hen the conte!pt consisted of scandali*in the
soverein or his !inisters, the la"-!a)in po"er, or the courts.
1n the A!erican states the po"er to punish for conte!pt, so far
as the e'ecutive depart!ent and the !inisters of state are
concerned, and in so!e deree so far as the leislative
depart!ent is concerned, is obsolete, but it has been al!ost
universall# preserved so far as reards the ,udicial depart!ent.
$he po"er "hich the courts have of vindicatin their o"n
authorit# is a necessar# incident to ever# court of ,ustice,
"hether of record or notL and the authorit# for issuin
attach!ents in a proper case for conte!pts out of court, it has
been declared, stands upon the sa!e i!!e!orial usae as
supports the "hole fabric of the co!!on la". . . . @Rulin Case
&a", vol. 5, p. ;64.A
$he undisputed i!portance of the orders of this court "hich have
been disobe#edL the loss of the prestie of the authorit# of the court
"hich issued the said orders, "hich loss !iht have been caused b#
nonco!pliance "ith the sa!e orders on the part of the respondent
Justo &u)banL the da!aes "hich !iht have been suffered b# so!e
of the "o!en illeall# detained, in vie" of the fact that the# "ere not
brouht to Manila b# the respondents to be presented before the court
and of the further fact that so!e of the! "ere oblied to co!e to this
cit# at their o"n e'pense "hile still others "ere brouht to Manila b#
the attorne# for the petitioners, "ho paid out of his o"n poc)et the
transportation of the said "o!enL and the dela# "hich "as
necessaril# incurred in the resolution of the petition interposed b# the
said petitioners and "hich "as due to the fact that the said orders
"ere not opportunatel# and dul# obe#ed and co!plied "ith, are
circu!stances "hich should be ta)en into account in i!posin upon
the respondent Justo &u)ban the penalt# correspondin to the
conte!pt co!!itted b# hi!, a penalt# "hich, accordin to section ?25
of the Code of Civil Procedure, should consist of a fine not e'ceedin
P3,<<< or i!prison!ent not e'ceedin !onths, or both such fine and
i!prison!ent. 1n the i!position of the penalt#, there should also be
ta)en into consideration the special circu!stance that the conte!pt
"as co!!itted b# a public authorit#, the !a#or of the cit# of Manila,
the first e'ecutive authorit# of the cit#, and conse.uentl#, the person
oblied to be the first in ivin an e'a!ple of obedience and respect
for the la"s and the valid and ,ust orders of the dul# constituted
authorities as "ell as for the orders e!anatin fro! the courts of
,ustice, and in ivin help and aid to the said courts in order that
,ustice !a# be ad!inistered "ith pro!ptness and rectitude.
1 believe, therefore, that instead of the fine of one hundred pesos
@P3<<A, there should be i!posed upon the respondent Justo &u)ban a
fine of five hundred pesos @PB<<A, and all the costs should be chared
aainst hi!. &astl#, 1 believe it to be !# dut# to state here that the
records of this proceedin should be trans!itted to the Attorne#-
9eneral in order that, after a stud# of the sa!e and deduction fro!
the testi!on# "hich he !a# dee! necessar#, and the proper
trans!ittal of the sa!e to the fiscal of the cit# of Manila and to the
provincial fiscal of %avao, both the latter shall present the
correspondin infor!ations for the prosecution and punish!ent of the
cri!es "hich have been co!!itted on the occasion "hen the illeal
detention of the "o!en "as carried into effect b# Ma#or Justo &u)ban
of the cit# of Manila and Chief of Police Anton (oh!ann, and also of
those cri!es co!!itted b# reason of the sa!e detention and "hile
the "o!en "ere in %avao. $his "ill be one of the !eans "hereb# the
,ust hope e'pressed in the !a,orit# decision "ill be reali*ed, that is,
that in the Philippine 1slands there should e'ist a overn!ent of la"s
and not a overn!ent of !en and that this decision !a# serve to
bul"ar) the fortifications of an orderl# 9overn!ent of la"s and to
protect individual libert# fro! illeal encroach!ents.