ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9518 January 3, 1916 - FRANCISCO ROSCO v. MARIANO REBUENO

    033 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. 10318 January 3, 1916 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETTO v. TOMAS CABREZA

    033 Phil 112

  • G.R. Nos. 11379 & 11380 January 3, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YU TEN

    033 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10992 January 6, 1916 - QUE QUAY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 10089 January 7, 1916 - VICTORIA AYLLON v. MIGUEL SIOJO

    033 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 10212 January 7, 1916 - INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI

    033 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 9252 January 11, 1916 - SINFOROSO PASCUAL v. WM. T. NOLTING

    033 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 9759 January 11, 1916 - PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO. v. IGNACIO DURAN

    033 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 10422 January 11, 1916 - A. LEMOINE v. C. ALKAN

    033 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 10863 January 11, 1916 - HERMOGENES DE JESUS v. G. URRUTIA & CO.

    033 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 11078 January 11, 1916 - CLIFFORD H. LOGAN v. PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO.

    033 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. 11088 January 11, 1916 - LIM CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 7798 January 14, 1916 - ANGELA C. GARCIA v. JOAQUIN DEL ROSARIO

    033 Phil 189

  • G.R. Nos. 10381 & 10714 January 14, 1916 - TRITON INSURANCE CO. v. ANGEL JOSE

    033 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10738 January 14, 1916 - RUEDA HERMANOS & CO. v. FELIX PAGLINAWAN & CO.

    033 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 10849 January 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS IGNACIO

    033 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 11015 January 14, 1916 - PERPETUO FLORES TAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 11002 January 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO P. PALACIO

    033 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 7988 January 19, 1916 - YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF MANILA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    033 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 9806 January 19, 1916 - LEONIDES LOPEZ LISO v. MANUEL TAMBUNTING

    033 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 10141 January 20, 1916 - MARGARITA SANTOS v. AGUSTIN ACOSTA

    033 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 10711 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. KONG FONG

    033 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 10731 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO LOPEZ QUIM QUINCO

    033 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 10783 January 20, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGRIPINO AGONCILLO

    033 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 10854 January 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. NG TUY

    033 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10436 January 24, 1916 - FRANCISCA EGUARAS v. GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

    033 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 10989 January 24, 1916 - GO PAW v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 10759 January 25, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VERZOLA

    033 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 10259 January 26, 1916 - CITY OF MANILA v. ALICE J. NEAL

    033 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9087 January 27, 1916 - MARIANO G. VELOSO v. JOSE HEREDIA

    033 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 10057 January 27, 1916 - DIAO CONTINO v. NOVO & COMPANY

    033 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 10099 January 27, 1916 - TEOFILA DEL ROSARIO DE COSTA v. LA BADENIA

    033 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 10528 January 27, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO MONTEROSO

    033 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 10537 January 27, 1916 - M. EARNSHAW & COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 10972 January 28, 1916 - LEE CHING v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 10557 January 29, 1916 - MARIA BALTAZAR v. APOLONIA ALBERTO

    033 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10907 January 29, 1916 - ONG JANG CHUAN v. WISE & CO. (LTD.)

    033 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 10040 January 31, 1916 - EUGENIA LICHAUCO v. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO

    033 Phil 350

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11015   January 14, 1916 - PERPETUO FLORES TAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />033 Phil 205

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11015. January 14, 1916. ]

    PERPETUO FLORES TAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.

    Beaumont & Tenney for Appellant.

    Attorney-General Avanceña for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. HABEAS CORPUS; CHINESE EXCLUSION; BURDEN OF PROOF. — In deportation proceedings, under the Chinese Exclusion Law, in an application for a petition of habeas corpus, the burden is upon the petitioner to show that the department of customs had abused its authority, power, or discretion; in order to show that, the proceedings before the Collector of Customs must be examined.

    2. ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF DISCRETION; EVIDENCE. — The courts have no right or authority to take proof upon the right of a Chinese alien to enter territory of the United States, after his right to enter has been denied by the department of customs, until after it is clearly shown that the department of customs has abused its authority, power, or discretion. That fact can only be shown by the record. Inasmuch as the burden is upon the petitioner, it becomes his duty to furnish proof showing an abuse of discretion.


    D E C I S I O N


    JOHNSON, J. :


    The plaintiff arrived at the port of Manila from China, on the steamship Chenan, on the 12th day of March, 1915, and requested permission to enter the Philippine Islands, claiming that he was a native of the Philippines and the natural son of Juana Flores and Tan Kee. Some question arose as to his right to enter the Philippine Islands. That question was referred to a board of special inquiry, which board, according to the record, after hearing all of the proof which the respective parties desired to present, reached the conclusion that he was not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands. An appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs from the decision of the board of special inquiry and affirmed by said Collector. The board of special inquiry refused the plaintiff the right to enter the Philippine Islands for the reason that it did not believe him to be the person he claimed to be. The board found that the plaintiff was a Chinese laborer, without the right to enter the said Islands.

    Later a rehearing was granted to the plaintiff, and additional witnesses were heard, and again the board of special inquiry denied the plaintiff the right to enter. Another appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs from the second decision of the board of special inquiry, and again affirmed. The Insular Collector of Customs, after a second review of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, and the arguments presented in his behalf, sustained the decision of the board of special inquiry and again ordered the plaintiff returned to his port of embarkation, on the next sailing of the vessel that brought him to the Philippine Islands or some other vessel of the same line.

    Later the plaintiff presented a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. The Collector of Customs was ordered to show cause why said writ should not be issued. Due return was made, in which the above facts were set forth.

    Upon the petition and return of the Collector of Customs, the cause was submitted to the court. Upon a consideration of said facts, the Honorable J. A. Ostrand, judge, denied the petition prayed for, and remanded the plaintiff to the custody of the Insular Collector of Customs for deportation. In addition to the prayer for the writ of prohibition, the plaintiff prayed that the Insular Collector of Customs be ordered to certify to the Court of First Instance for review, a full and complete transcription of all of the proceedings had in the Bureau of Customs, relating to the right of the plaintiff to enter the Philippine Islands. In the course of his opinion and in answer to the prayer of the petition of the plaintiff, Judge Ostrand said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is well established that in the absence of an abuse of authority or special error of law, the decision of the administrative authorities is final, in cases of this nature, and the courts have no power to interfere. There is no evidence now before the court showing abuse of authority, and such errors of law as may have been incurred do not appear to have been substantial. It may be true that the Collector of Customs in his decision, has taken into consideration facts appearing from the records of his office, and which did not originally appear in the records of this case, but the petitioner does not allege that he is prepared to refute or disprove the facts so found.

    "In addition to the writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner also asks for a writ of certiorari, but does not allege facts showing that respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction, nor does it appear that the petitioner does not have another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Under these facts the writ of certiorari will not issue."cralaw virtua1aw library

    From that decision of the lower court, the plaintiff appealed to this court and here makes several assignments of error. Practically every one of said assignments of error has been discussed by this court in former decisions. This court has repeatedly and constantly held the contrary to the contention of the Appellant. The appellant argues that the lower court committed an error in refusing to order the record of the proceedings before the immigration authorities certified to the Court of First Instance. In answer to that argument, it may be said that the burden is upon the plaintiff, in cases like the present, to show that the department of customs had abused its authority, power, or discretion. In order to show that, the proceedings before the Collector of Customs must be examined. The courts have no right or authority to take proof upon the right of a Chinese alien to enter territory of the United States, after his right to enter has been denied by the department of customs, until it is clearly shown that said department has abused its power, authority, or discretion. That fact can only be shown by the records. Inasmuch, therefore, as the burden is upon the petitioner, it becomes the duty of said petitioner to furnish proof showing such abuse of discretion.

    There is still another reason justifying the denial of the court to order the Collector of Customs to send up a copy of the record made before him, and that is the fact that a copy in the present case had already been furnished the representative of the plaintiff.

    Without a further discussion of the assignments of error, we are of the opinion and so hold that the judgment of the Court of First Instance, denying the writ of habeas corpus and ordering the plaintiff returned to the Collector of Customs for deportation, should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11015   January 14, 1916 - PERPETUO FLORES TAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS<br /><br />033 Phil 205


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED