KING

vs
HERNAEZ
G.R. No. L-14859
MARCH 31, 9162
 FACTS OF THE CASE
• Macario King, a naturalized Filipino citizen, became the owner of
"Import Meat and Produce", a grocery wholesale and retail
business on January 1, 1957, it was previously owned by the
Philippine Cold Stores, Inc. who employed 15 persons, 12 of whom
are Filipinos and the other 3 Chinese (one as purchaser and the
other two as salesmen).

• King sought permission from the President of the Philippines to

retain the services of the three Chinese employees pursuant to
Section 2-A of Commonwealth Act 108.
 FACTS OF THE CASE
• The Secretary of Commerce and Industry recommended the
disapproval of King's request on the ground that aliens may not
be appointed to operate or administer a retail business under
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1180, the only exception thereto
being the employment of technical personnel which may be
allowed after securing to that effect an authorization from the
President.

• The President disapproved King’s request since the positions of

purchaser and salesmen are not technical positions within the
meaning of Section 2-A of Commonwealth Act 108, as amended by
Republic Act No. 134.
 FACTS OF THE CASE
• On August 25, 1958, Macario King and the Chinese employees filed the
following petitions against the Secretary of Commerce and Industry and
the Executive Secretary before:
o Declaratory relief,
o Injunction, and
o Mandamus
• They are "uncertain and in doubt as to their rights and duties under
Republic Act No. 1180 and Commonwealth Act No. 108, as amended by
Republic Act No. 134.
• Alleging that the rulings are illegal in view of the respective situations
and positions of petitioners in the retail establishment, the purpose and
language of the laws abovementioned, and the constitutional guarantee
of the rights of an employer to employ and of an employee to work
accorded to citizens and aliens alike.
 FACTS OF THE CASE
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The remedy is not available to petitioners
because they have already committed a breach
DECLATORY
of the Section 1 of the Retail Trade Act and
RELIEF
Section 2-A of the Anti-Dummy Law. The three
Chinese employees are not technical men.

PRELIMINARY The requisites for its issuance have not been

INJUNCTION satisfied

Petitioners failed to show that respondents

have unlawfully neglected any duty which
MANDAMUS
they are called upon to perform and which
would make them liable for such relief.
LOWER COURT’S RULING
• Motion to dismiss filed by respondents - DENIED FOR LACK
OF MERIT
• Macario King may employ any person, although not a citizen of
the Philippines or of the United States of America, including the
three petitioners herein as purchaser and salesmen, in any position
in his retail business not involving participation, or intervention
in the management, operation, administration or control of said
business;
• Issued writ of preliminary injunction against respondents ordering
them to desist from interfering by criminal and/or administrative
action.
• Respondent elevated and made an appeal to the Supreme Court.
 ISSUE:

How should Section 1 of RA 1180

be interpreted in relation to
Section 2-a of Commonwealth Act
108?
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION
• RA 1180. SECTION 1. No person who is not a citizen of the
Philippines, and no association, partnership, or corporation the
capital of which is not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines,
shall engage directly or indirectly in the retail business….

• Commonwealth Act 108. SEC. 2-A. Any person, corporation, or

association…. in any manner permits or allows any person, not
possessing the qualifications required by the Constitution, or
existing laws……to intervene in the management, operation,
administration or control thereof…..shall be punished by
imprisonment for not less than five nor more than fifteen years and
by a fine.
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION
DOCTRINE LAID DOWN

REDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS

This means that the antecedents "management, operation,

administration and control" and the consequents "officer,
employee, and laborer" should be read distributively to the
effect that each word is to be applied to the subject to which it
appears by context most properly relate and to which it is
most applicable.
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION
Retail Trade Law

• The SC had ruled on its constitutionality

• Its primordial purpose is to confine the privilege to engage in
retail trade to Filipino citizens by prohibiting any person who is
not a Filipino citizen or any entity from engaging, directly or
indirectly, in the retail business. It seeks complete ban to aliens.
• The reasons behind such ban are the pernicious and intolerable
practices of alien retailers who control the trade and dominate the
distribution of goods vital to the life of our people thereby resulting
not only in the increasing dominance of alien control in retail
trade but at times in the strangle hold on our economic life.
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION
Lao H. Ichong v. Hernandez, et al.
G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
The present dominance of the alien retailer, especially in the big
centers of population, therefore, becomes a potential source of danger
on occasions of war or other calamity. We do not have here in this
country isolated groups of harmless aliens retailing goods among
nationals; what we have are well organized and powerful groups that
dominate the distribution of goods and commodities in the
communities and big centers of population. They owe no allegiance or
loyalty to the State, and the State cannot rely upon them in times of
crisis or emergency. While the national holds his life, his person and his
property subject to the needs of his country, the alien may even
become the potential enemy of the State.
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION
Retail Trade Law
• From the context of the law as well as from the decision of the SC in
the Ichong case, it may be safely inferred that the nationalization of
the retail trade is merely confined to its ownership and not its
management, control, or operation.

• This apparent flaw in the Retail Trade Law cannot be availed as a

convenient pretext to employ in the management of his business
persons as we have the Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth Act
No. 108, as amended by Republic Act No. 134), which seeks "to
punish acts of evasion of the laws of nationalization of certain
rights, franchises or privileges."
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION
Anti-Dummy Law
• The language of the Anti-Dummy Law bans aliens' employment in
both control and non-control positions.
• The words management, operation, administration and control
"whether as an officer, employee or laborer therein", signify the
legislative intent that even laborers are excluded from
employment.
• Applying redendo singula singulis, "management, operation,
administration and control" and the consequents "officer, employee,
and laborer" should be read distributively to the effect that each
word is to be applied to the subject to which it appears by context
most properly relate and to which it is most applicable.
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION
Anti-Dummy Law
• The context of the law is clear on its extent and scope to prohibit.
• The Retail Trade Law advocates the complete nationalization of
the retail trade by denying its ownership to any alien.
• The Anti-Dummy Law limits its management, operation,
administration and control to Filipino citizens.
• The prevailing idea is to secure both ownership and management
of the retail business in Filipino hands. It prohibits a person not a
Filipino from engaging in retail trade directly or indirectly while
it limits the management, operation, administration and control
to Filipino citizens.
SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION
• When the law says that you cannot employ an alien in any
position pertaining to management, operation, administration and
control, "whether as an officer, employee, or laborer therein", it only
means that the employment of a person who is not a Filipino
citizen even in a minor or clerical or non-control position is
prohibited.
• There is no point in distinguishing employments in positions of
control and non-control positions to realize that the law is framed
up the way we find it so that no difficulties will be encountered
in its enforcement.

• A government wants to know, without being put to a search, that

what it forbids is carried out effectively.
 DISSENTING OPINIONS
LOWER COURT
There is no question that a
Filipino citizen has a right to
engage in any lawful business,
to select, pick and employ
anyone……nullify it and it
will produce a communist
control of action in our free
movement and intercourse
with our fellow citizens
SUPREME COURT
The aim of the Retail Trade Law
is not to deprive citizen of a
right but rather, to promote,
enhance and protect the citizen.
It is a law "clearly in the interest
of the public, of the national
security itself, and
indisputability falls within the
scope police power, thru which
and by which the State insures
its existence and security and the
supreme welfare of its citizens."
 DISSENTING OPINIONS
LOWER COURT
The freedom to employ is
guaranteed by our Constitution
is Meyer v. Nebraska, 67 Law
Ed. 1042, that "the liberty
guaranteed by the
Constitution includes the right
to engage in any of the
common occupations of life"
SUPREME COURT
Itchong case – the deadly
strangle hold on the national
economy endangering the
national security of
monopolistic aliens is the
foundation of the Anti-
Dummy Law and in rejecting
the application and
appreciation of the Meyer case
in the consideration of the
constitutionality of the Anti-
Dummy Law.
 DISSENTING OPINIONS
LOWER COURT
The right to employ is the
same as the right to associate.
The right to associate is
admittedly one of the most
sacred privileges of a Filipino
citizen. We hold and sustain
that under the Constitution and
laws of this country, there is no
difference between a natural-
born citizen and a naturalized
citizen, with the possible
exception, as provided by the
Constitution
SUPREME COURT
This has no foundation in law
for it confuses the right of
employment with the right of
association embodied in the Bill
of Rights of our Constitution.
Petitioners have never been
denied the right to form
voluntary associations. They can
organize to engage in any
business venture of their own
choosing provided that they
comply with the limitations
prescribed by our regulatory
laws.
 SUPREME COURT RULING

• The preliminary injunction is LIFTED.

• The petition for mandamus is DISMISSED.

• Costs against appellees.