Colegio de San Juan de Letran – Calamba

LABOR RELATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS

JEAN CARLA RAFANAN

3HRDM

MAY 24 2019
CASE TITLE: ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL VS JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL
Alfonso Mendoza for petitioners
City Fiscal Diaz for respondents

G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919

FACTS:
 Justo Lukban, who was the Mayor of the City Manila, ordered the deportation of 170
prostitutes to Davao
 H i s r e a s o n f o r d o i n g s o w a s t o preserve the morals of the people of
Manila. He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work
for an haciendero Feliciano Ynigo. The prostitutes were confined in houses from October
16 to 18 of that year before being boarded, at the dead of night, in two boats bound
for Davao. The women were under the assumption that they were being transported to
another policestation while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea
that the women being sent to work for him were actually prostitutes.
 The families of the prostitutes came forward to file charges against
Lukban.A n t o n H o h m a n n , t h e C h i e f o f P o l i c e , a n d F r a n c i s c o S a l e s , t h
e Governor of Davao. They prayed for a writ of habeas
c o r p u s t o b e i s s u e d a g a i n s t t h e respondents to compel them to bring back the
170 women who were deported to Mindanao against their will.
 During the trial, it came out that, indeed, the women were deported without
their consent. In effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile. Most of a l l ,
there was no law or order authorizing Lukban’s deportation of the
1 7 0 prostitutes.
ISSUE: Whether or not the mayor of Manila had 170 "women of ill repute" forcibly
rounded up, put on a ship, and sent to Davao as laborers.
Supreme Court (SC) Ruling: The SC ruled in favor of the Petioner Justo Lukban,
ET AL

 The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum of 400 pesos
each, plus 100 pesos for nominal damage due to contempt of court. Reasoning further
that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally
take a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then,
when called upon to defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that
the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this
other municipality.
 They believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the jurisdiction
of the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the
wrong that he has inflicted, he should be compelled to do so. Even if the party to whom
the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the
application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the mayor and the
chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the city
of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return
them from Davao to Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be
permitted to restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile
and to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her
birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not thus be
easily evaded.