Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > September 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24687 September 21, 1968 - IN RE: FONG CHOY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24687. September 21, 1968.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, FONG CHOY, also known as CARLOS YEE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

Jose A. Uy for Petitioner-Appellee.

Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; REQUISITE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER; CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF PRICE TAG LAW IS AN EVIDENCE AGAINST PROPER AND IRREPROACHABLE CONDUCT OF APPLICANT. — The lower court’s consideration of an application for citizenship notwithstanding the admission of the applicant that he previously pleaded guilty to an indictment for the violation of the Price Tag Law finds no support in the law. Approximately five months before its appealed decision, in Tio Tek Chai v. Republic (October 30, 1964), this Court held that violation of the Price Tag Law "certainly renders (petitioner’s) conduct anything but proper and irreproachable." The lower court, instead of exhibiting deference and respect for such decision, would in effect overrule the same. It did not have such a power. What this Court has decreed must be obeyed.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXPLANATION OFFERED BY APPLICANT, UNWORTHY OF BELIEF. — The lower court apparently was satisfied with the explanation that while petitioner saw to it that the articles he was selling were properly tagged, "it so happened that the tag of a certain article fell, and when the inspector came, the tag was not on the article." Such an explanation appears to strain the limits of human credulity, but, of course, some minds are more credulous than others. Such a version, could, without implausibility, be looked upon as indicative of applicant’s ingenuity, apparently taxed to the utmost, to explain the inexplicable and excuse the inexcusable. It could have been inspired by an awareness that unless he could offer some sort of a justification, however lame, the obstacle to the grant of citizenship was insuperable.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGOROUS OBSERVANCE OF EVERY REQUISITE FOR NATURALIZATION. — Even if there were no binding Tio Tek Chai ruling, the lower court ought to have been less generous in its indiscriminate acceptance of explanations of such character. It ought to have shown greater awareness of the trend of decisions of this Tribunal, which is rightfully insistent on the rigorous observance of each and every requisite indispensable for the acquisition of citizenship. Such should be the case if the boon of nationality which is the basis of political rights is to be accorded only to those who, by their exemplary behavior and conduct, have earned the title-deed to membership to our political community.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


The question presented in this appeal from a grant of citizenship is whether an applicant, who previously pleaded guilty to an indictment for the violation of the Price Tag Law, had nonetheless successfully hurdled the barrier rightfully interposed to weed out undesirables and to bestow citizenship only on the deserving. The lower court, the Hon. Francisco Geronimo presiding, answered in the affirmative. As the correct response ought to have been anything but that, we reverse the lower court.

In the statement of facts in the brief for the Republic as appellant, there being an acceptance of what was set forth therein in petitioner-appellee’s brief, 1 it was expressly set forth: "During the hearing, the petitioner admitted that he was fined P25.00 for violation of the price tag law. He explained that at that time all the articles he was selling were properly tagged as to its prices, but it so happened that the tag of a certain article fell and when the inspector came the tag was not on the article. In order to avoid any more discussion, he paid the fine. . . ." 2

The above admission notwithstanding, there being an opposition to the petition filed by the Republic as to his failure to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner as shown by such violation of the Price Tag Law, the lower court, on March 24, 1965, rendered a decision to the effect that there was no impediment to applicant Fong Choy’s naturalization. It was held that he was possessed of all the qualifications required by law and none of the disqualifications specified therein, thus entitling him to the grant of Filipino citizenship. The Republic appealed.

We sustain the appeal and reverse the lower court. Its rather generous frame of mind in considering this application for citizenship, manifested in the decision appealed from, finds no support in the law. The decision was rendered on March 24, 1965. Approximately five months previously, on October 30, 1964, in Tio Tek Chai v. Republic, 3 this Court held that violation of the Price Tag Law "certainly renders [petitioner’s] conduct anything but proper and irreproachable." clubjuris

What this Court has ruled is binding on inferior tribunals. The lower court, instead of exhibiting deference and respect for a decision of this Court, would in effect overrule the same. It did not have such a power. What this Court had decreed must be obeyed. The lower court’s duty was plain. It failed to do it. Its decision is tainted with the corrosion of substantial legal error. It cannot stand.

In the Tio Tek Chai decision, the opinion being penned by Justice Makalintal, reference was made to the testimonial evidence of applicant to the effect that he had the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization. The opinion continues: "One of the facts disclosed by such evidence, and now relied upon by appellant as the only ground for urging the denial of the petition, is that sometime in 1956, petitioner was charged with violation of the Price Tag Law (Republic Act No. 71) and upon his plea of guilty was sentenced to pay a fine of P10.00. Petitioner tried to minimize the significance of the conviction as follows: that he was the owner of a bakery, from which he was deriving his income; that one day in 1956 his storekeeper cleaned the showcase in his establishment where different kinds of bread and biscuit were displayed; that the storekeeper failed to replace the price tag pertaining to one of them and a policeman noticed the omission; and that although petitioner was not in the bakery at the time he nevertheless owned the violation, preferring the fine to the trouble of defending himself in a litigation." clubjuris

It goes on to refer to the "considerable discussion in the briefs as to whether or not the offense of which petitioner was convicted" involves moral turpitude. Petitioner was sustained by the Court below in his view that it does not, but the Solicitor General maintained the contrary. This Court, in the Tio Tek Chai decision, ruled that "the point is of no decisive importance." It explained why: "Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is one of the grounds upon which an alien is absolutely disqualified from becoming naturalized as a Filipino citizen, according to Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended). However, it is not enough that an applicant be not disqualified under said provision; it is also required that he be possessed of the qualifications enumerated in Section 2. And among those qualifications is that he must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living." clubjuris

Moreover, in that case, the explanation that the plea of guilt was inspired, presumably "for convenience as business men in general desire to devote all their time to their business rather than to waste [it]," in lawsuits failed to satisfy this Tribunal. Thus, according to the concluding paragraph of the Tio Tek Chai opinion; "Republic Act No. 71, as amended by Republic Act No. 1074, provides that all articles of commerce and trade offered for sale to the public at retail shall be publicly displayed with appropriate tags or labels to indicate the price of each article and that said articles shall be sold uniformly and without discrimination at the stated prices. The absence of price tags could obviously serve as a means to facilitate profiteering; and the law was enacted precisely to protect the buying public therefrom. Violation of this law by petitioner certainly renders his conduct anything but proper and irreproachable. The explanation given by him — that he pleaded guilty simply to avoid a troublesome court proceeding — deserves little credence; and if true at all betrays a lack of faith in the administration of justice in this country that is unseemly in one desiring to become a citizen." So it ought to have been in this case.

That is all the needs be said concerning this appeal of the Republic which, as above pointed out, must be given a favorable response.

One other point. The lower court apparently was satisfied with the explanation that while petitioner saw to it that the articles he was selling were properly tagged, "it so happened that the tag of a certain article fell, and when the inspector came, the tag was not on the article." 4

Off-hand, such an explanation appears to strain the limits of human credulity, but, of course, some minds are more credulous than others. Such a version could, without implausibility, be looked upon as indicative of applicant’s ingenuity, apparently taxed to the utmost, to explain the inexplicable and excuse the inexcusable. It could have been inspired by an awareness that unless he could offer some sort of a justification, however lame, the obstacle to the grant of citizenship was insuperable. Hence such a version.

Truth may be stranger that fiction, but it would not be safe rule to consider as the test of veracity the improbability of what is asserted. The unbelievable as such, can, more often than not, hardly claim kinship with the truth. The lower court apparently was of a different mind. That is no guaranty of the correctness of its conclusion. Far from it.

Even if there were no binding Tio Tek Chai ruling therefore, the lower court ought to have been less generous in its indiscriminate acceptance of explanations of such character. It ought to have shown greater awareness of the trend of decisions of this Tribunal, which is rightfully insistent on the rigorous observance of each and every requisite indispensable for the acquisition of citizenship. Such should be the case if the boon of nationality which is the basis of political rights is to be accorded only to those who, by their exemplary behavior and conduct, have earned the title-deed to membership in our political community.

The applicant in this case failed to live up to such a rigorous standard. Hence, his petition ought to have been denied.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court naturalizing petitioner Fong Choy, also known as Carlos Yee, is reversed. Costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Brief for Appellant, pp. 2 to 3.

2. Ibid, pp. 6 to 7.

3. G. R. L-19112, October 30, 1964.

4. Brief for Appellant, p. 4.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



September-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20977 September 7, 1968 - JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO v. BERNABE SABILLANO

  • G.R. No. L-28470 September 19, 1968 - REAL MONASTERIO v. DOMINGO FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24498 September 21, 1968 - TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24687 September 21, 1968 - IN RE: FONG CHOY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25135 September 21, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

  • G.R. No. L-25484 September 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO MA. MODESTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29417 September 21, 1968 - EDILBERTA P. ANOTA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO BERMUDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21303 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21942 September 23, 1968 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25791 September 23, 1968 - CARLOS B. GONZALES v. EULOGIO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-24833 September 23, 1968 - FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MERCEDES VARGAS VDA. DE SONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24202 September 23, 1968 - C.A. CHIONG SHIPPING CO., ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21070 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21402 September 23, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24303 September 23, 1968 - BEATRIZ C. ARAGONES, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-26137 September 23, 1968 - EUGENIO V. VILLANUEVA, JR. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18010 September 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO CABILTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24656 September 25, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25031 September 25, 1968 - ISIDORO GEVEROLA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968 - JOSE L. LACHICA, ET AL. v. JUAN E. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-22733 September 25, 1968 - SALVADOR BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23302 September 25, 1968 - ALEJANDRO RAS v. ESTELA SUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25132 September 25, 1968 - FRANCISCO DUQUE v. GAVINA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28927 September 25, 1968 - LAGUNA COLLEGE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29193 September 26, 1968 - CIPRIANO P. MALIWANAG v. AMEURFINA MELENCIO-HERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-25531 September 26, 1968 - ELENO T. SANGALANG, SR. v. HUGO H. CAINGAT

  • G.R. No. L-21299 September 27, 1968 - ANSELMA PENDON, ET AL. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO

  • G.R. No. L-21183 September 27, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS

  • G.R. No. L-23991 September 27, 1968 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25222 September 27, 1968 - BESSIE M. GRAY, ET AL. v. VICENTE C. KIUNGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25226 September 27, 1968 - ISABELO PINZA v. TEOFILO ALDOVINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25790 September 27, 1968 - JOSE A. GARCIA v. ADELAIDA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-28493 September 27, 1968 - AGRIPINA J. VALDEZ, ET AL. v. ESTELA DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29362 September 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23958 September 28, 1968 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU v. EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24489 September 28, 1968 - AUGUSTIN GRACILLA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24503 September 28, 1968 - IN RE: LO BENG HA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25359 September 28, 1968 - ARADA LUMUNGO, JUHURI DAWA, ET AL. v. ASAAD USMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25511 September 28, 1968 - PATRICIO S. CUNANAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28246 September 28, 1968 - ROGELIO PUREZA, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-29532 September 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO OANDASAN

  • G.R. No. L-20993 September 28, 1968 - RIZAL LIGHT & ICE CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22110 September 28, 1968 - CRISTOBAL MARCOS, ET AL. v. MARIA JESUS DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23312 September 28, 1968 - JULIO GATLABAYAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-23370-71 September 28, 1968 - TERESA FERRER, ET AL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23832 September 28, 1968 - PROCESO APOLEGA v. PERSEVERANDA HIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24155 September 28, 1968 - DELFIN SANTOS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO E. CHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25133 September 28, 1968 - JOSE SANTIAGO v. CELSO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25361 September 28, 1968 - LEONARDO NAVARRO v. LUIS L. LARDIZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 September 28, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29471 September 28, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. JOAQUIN M. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21544 September 30, 1968 - J.M TUASON & CO., INC. v. ATANACIO MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-25051 September 30, 1968 - JOSE B. ROXAS, ET AL. v. PEDRO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968 - ANICIA CADIZ v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.