G.R. No. 43935 - AUGUST 1935 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 43935August 31, 1935 Simeon Cabañero, et al. vs. Ramon Torres, et al. G.R. No. 43436August 31, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Caballero G.R. No. 42798August 31, 1935 Guillermo de los Reyes vs. Moises T. Solidum G.R. No. 43382August 30, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Pascual Gallemos, et al. G.R. No. 42277August 30, 1935 La Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Mateo Jimenez, et al. G.R. No. 41795August 30, 1935 J.W. Shannon, et al. vs. Philippine Lumber & Transportation Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. 41794August 30, 1935 Segundina Musñgi, et al. vs. West Coast Life Insurance Co. G.R. No. 41747August 30, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Irineo R. Castro G.R. No. 41700August 30, 1935 Isabel Cabrera, et al. vs. Manuel Quiogue G.R. No. 43916August 27, 1935 A. Levett vs. Jose Sy Quia, et al. Per Rec. Nos. 3527-3408August 23, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. , et al. G.R. No. 44104August 23, 1935 Trinidad Aquino vs. Cristina Tongco G.R. No. 44101August 23, 1935 Trinidad Aquino vs. Cristina Tongco G.R. No. 44042August 23, 1935 Remedios Bongon Viuda de Manzanero vs. Court of First Instance of Batangas, et al. G.R. No. 43936August 23, 1935 In re: Jose Avila. Encarnacion Neyra vs. Jose G. de Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. 43195August 23, 1935 Felipe Gonzales vs. Florentino C. Viola, et al. G.R. No. 43370August 22, 1935 Sy Sam vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 43252August 22, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Valdes Vacani, et al. G.R. No. 43250August 22, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Valdes Vacani G.R. No. 42757August 22, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Federico Zapata, et al. G.R. No. 43469August 21, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Beatriz Yuman G.R. No. 41925August 21, 1935 Presentation Tecson vs. Silvino Tecson, et al. Per Rec. No. 3633August 17, 1935 Maxima T. Viuda de Veloso vs. Casimiro V. Madarang G.R. No. 43918August 17, 1935 Josefa Bajacan vs. Emilio Peña, et al. G.R. No. 41901August 15, 1935 Matias N. Sales vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 43794August 9, 1935 Luis Francisco vs. Francisco Zandueta, et al. G.R. No. 43618August 9, 1935 So See vs. Insular Collector of Customs G.R. No. 42630August 9, 1935 B.A. Batterton vs. Consuelo Carratala Viuda de Veloso, et al. G.R. No. 41917August 9, 1935 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Dolores C. Lim, et al. G.R. No. 41701August 9, 1935 Antonio de la Riva vs. Marceliano Reynoso G.R. No. 42992August 8, 1935 Felipe Salcedo vs. Francisco Hernandez G.R. No. 43968August 7, 1935 E. Macias Commission Impex Company, Limited vs. Pedro Duhart, et al. G.R. No. 41825August 7, 1935 Malabon Sugar Company vs. Municipality of Malabon, et al. G.R. No. 41715August 7, 1935 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Conde G.R. No. 40411August 7, 1935 Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc. vs. Aproniano G. Castillo, et al. G.R. No. 43530August 3, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio Lamahang G.R. No. 43292August 3, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Sotero Delfinado G.R. No. 41573August 3, 1935 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Margarita Torralba Viuda de Santos G.R. No. 43210August 2, 1935 People of the Philippines vs. Roman Pulmones G.R. No. 43099August 1, 1935 Ng Tiong Suan vs. Insular Collector of Customs The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Simeon Cabañero, et al. vs. Ramon Torres, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jose Caballero Guillermo de los Reyes vs. Moises T. Solidum People of the Philippines vs. Pascual Gallemos, et al. La Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Mateo Jimenez, et al. J.W. Shannon, et al. vs. Philippine Lumber & Transportation Co., Inc., et al. Segundina Musñgi, et al. vs. West Coast Life Insurance Co. People of the Philippines vs. Irineo R. Castro Isabel Cabrera, et al. vs. Manuel Quiogue A. Levett vs. Jose Sy Quia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. , et al. Trinidad Aquino vs. Cristina Tongco Trinidad Aquino vs. Cristina Tongco Remedios Bongon Viuda de Manzanero vs. Court of First Instance of Batangas, et al. In re: Jose Avila. Encarnacion Neyra vs. Jose G. de Ocampo, et al. Felipe Gonzales vs. Florentino C. Viola, et al. Sy Sam vs. Insular Collector of Customs People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Valdes Vacani, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Valdes Vacani People of the Philippines vs. Federico Zapata, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Beatriz Yuman Presentation Tecson vs. Silvino Tecson, et al. Maxima T. Viuda de Veloso vs. Casimiro V. Madarang Josefa Bajacan vs. Emilio Peña, et al. Matias N. Sales vs. Director of Lands, et al. Luis Francisco vs. Francisco Zandueta, et al. So See vs. Insular Collector of Customs B.A. Batterton vs. Consuelo Carratala Viuda de Veloso, et al. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Dolores C. Lim, et al. Antonio de la Riva vs. Marceliano Reynoso Felipe Salcedo vs. Francisco Hernandez E. Macias Commission Impex Company, Limited vs. Pedro Duhart, et al. Malabon Sugar Company vs. Municipality of Malabon, et al. Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Conde Davao Saw Mill Co., Inc. vs. Aproniano G. Castillo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio Lamahang People of the Philippines vs. Sotero Delfinado Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Margarita Torralba Viuda de Santos People of the Philippines vs. Roman Pulmones Ng Tiong Suan vs. Insular Collector of Customs The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 43935             August 31, 1935

SIMEON CABAÑERO, ET AL.,petitioners,
vs.
RAMON TORRES, ET AL.,respondents.

G. Viola Fernando for petitioners.
Ross, Lawrence and Selph for respondent Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association.
Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for the other respondents.

MALCOLM,J.:

These special proceedings initiated by two laborers against the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, the Secretary of Labor, and certain public officials, are the sequel to previous proceedings between the same parties in this court, G.R. No. 43352.¹In the case just referred to, the petition was dismissed because no ground existed for the issuance of a writ of prohibition, based on the premise that the Secretary of Labor would carry out his announced purpose to decline to issue a new license to the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association except upon a satisfactory showing that the it has already acquired a juridical personality under the laws of the Philippine Islands. Thereafter, however, it is our understanding from the allegations of the present complaint and the answer interposed by the Solicitor-General in behalf of the respondents, that while the Secretary of Labor has not yet issued the license applied for by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, he is seriously considering the issuance of one because the association has a good record and is trustworthy. The Secretary of Labor also appears to have believed that the association would take steps looking to registration in the Bureau of Commerce, although counsel for the association in his memorandum intimates that the Secretary must have misunderstood the representative of the association.

As above indicated, the petitioners are two among a large number of laborers who allege that they have valid and outstanding money claims against the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association. The latter is an unincorporated organization made up of various corporations and companies interested in the sugar business in the Territory of Hawaii. Ever since the enactment by the Philippine Legislature of Act No. 2486 in 1915, the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association has secured a license permitting it to recruit laborers in the Philippines.

Said Act No. 2486, in relation with Act No. 4007, fixes a tax upon every person or entity engaged recruiting or contracting laborers in the Philippines. A license is required before any person or entity engages in the industry referred to by the law. The license is secured from the Department of Labor to which department appears to have been granted exclusive authority in the premises.

The prayer of the instant petition is that we declare the license in behalf of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association, if one has already been issued, illegal and null and void, or if none has yet been issued, that we grant an injunction and prohibition against the issuance of a license. Casting overboard the vast amount of extraneous matter with which the petition and the exhibits are burdened, the gravamen of the complaint as understood by the respondents is that the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association is juridically non-existent and, therefore, cannot be the grantee of a license to recruit laborers within the Philippine Islands.

With the prayer of the complaint and the proposition emanating therefrom to the forefront, it should be understood that it is any "person" or "entity" which is authorized to contract laborers in the Philippines by securing a license. Counsel for the respondent association does not contend that the association is included with the definition of juridical persons as found in the Civil Code. But counsel argues that the association can be considered an "entity" within the meaning of the law. It is unnecessary, according to the view we take of the case, to make express pronouncement on this question.

The point we desire to emphasize is, that on the Secretary of Labor is thrown the responsibility of determining if a license should be granted the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association. That according to our view indicates a discretionary authority to be exercised by the Secretary. He it is who is expected to see that justice is done labor in the Philippines, while at the same time seeing that justice is done to capital in its relations with labor. Should the Secretary maintain his former position to the effect that the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association must acquire a juridical personality before a license can be granted to it, this court would be inclined to stand back of the Secretary in his decision. On the other hand, if the Secretary desires to grant a license to the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association as it is now organized without further formalities, the court would be inclined to stand back of the Secretary on this proposition. In other words, it is for the Secretary of Labor and not or the Supreme Court to grant or not to grant the license.

In addition to what has been said, from another viewpoint it has occurred to us that possibly the laborers in question would find themselves better protected by permitting the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association to obtain a license, than by protesting against the issuance of a license to the association. We mean by this that the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association having taken advantage of the laws of the Philippines to advance its own purposes could not very well avoid service or financial responsibility when claims are filed against it in the courts. Indeed as we understand the attitude of counsel for the association, the latter is not seeking to shield itself behind such technicalities.

There are a multitude of other questions and incidents raised by the pleadings, the exhibits, and memoranda. However, we do not propose to let ourselves get lost in a discussion of these miscellaneous matters. The main issue is one of right and power — right in so far as the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association is concerned to claim a license, and power in so far as the Secretary of Labor is concerned to decide whether or not the association should be granted a license. Deciding that issue, we rule that the decision rests with the Secretary of Labor and that in deciding the question the Secretary exercises jurisdiction with which this court should not interfere.

In accordance with the foregoing, the petition will be dismissed, without costs.

Villa-Real, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.

Footnotes