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
 

   
May-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17812 May 20, 1964 - CIPRIANO DEFENSOR v. HON. RAMON BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17212 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LT. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18763-64 May 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19562 May 23, 1964 - JOSE SERRANO v. LUIS SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16217 May 25, 1964 - ALFONSO DE LOS REYES, ET AL. v. LUIS DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-18783 May 25, 1964 - GENEROSO BAJE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18978 May 25, 1964 - MANUEL MORATA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA. CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19273-74 May 25, 1964 - STA.CECILIA SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19566 May 25, 1964 - REMELA ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE F. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-19756 May 25, 1964 - ALEJANDRA ESQUIVEL-CABATIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19849 May 25, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. OLIMPIO LIMLINGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20614 and L-21517 May 25, 1964 - PHIL. RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15998 May 26, 1964 - GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18079 May 26, 1964 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. BERNARDO S. DUNGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18264 May 26, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15308 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BOYLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16086 May 29, 1964 - M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16857 May 29, 1964 - MARCELO CASTILLO, JR., ET AL. v. MACARIA PASCO

  • G.R. No. L-17639 May 29, 1964 - CESAR PABLO OBESO BEDUYA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18203 May 29, 1964 - MANUEL DE LARA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18282 May 29, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PRISCILA ESTATE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18450 May 29, 1964 - LU DO, ET AL. v. PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18777 May 29, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CONDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18808 May 29, 1964 - ACE PUBLICATION, INC. v. COMM. OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19060 May 20, 1964 - IGNACIO GERONA, ET AL. v. CARMEN DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19252 May 29, 1964 - TUMIPUS MANGAYAO, ET AL. v. QUINTANA LASUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19265 May 29, 1964 - MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. v. ADELO NOMBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19555 May 29, 1964 - MATEO DE RAMAS v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22193 May 29, 1964 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. JULIETA CORNISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22696 May 29, 1964 - COMM. OF IMMIGRATION v. HON. F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10774 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-6025 & L-6026 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15056 May 30, 1964 - M. S. GALUTERA v. MAERSK LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16315 May 30, 1964 - COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16547 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO ANTONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16569 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. ENGINEERING CORP. v. AMADO FLORENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16975 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: ROMULO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17774 May 30, 1964 - IN RE: CEFERINO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18476 May 30, 1964 - PHIL. LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. SY INDONG CO. RICE & CORN MILL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18758 May 30, 1964 - DY PEK LONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 18767 and L-18789-90 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MADRIGAL TORINO

  • G.R. No. L-19569 May 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZANA YUMANG

  • G.R. No. L-19749 May 30, 1964 - MONICO CRUZ v. CAMILO PANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19773 May 30, 1964 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-15998   May 26, 1964 - GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-15998. May 26, 1964.]

    GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.

    Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellee.

    Leon Guinto, Jr. and Eulalio B. Garcia for Petitioner-Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CITIZENSHIP; NATURALIZATION; VIOLATION OF REQUIREMENT OF TWO YEAR STAY DEPRIVES APPLICANT OF CITIZENSHIP. — Where an applicant for citizenship was out of the Philippines for almost three months during the two year period he was required to stay in the Philippines, in violation of Republic Act No. 530, it is held that the order of the lower court denying his petition to be allowed to take his oath as a citizen of the Philippines should be affirmed.

    2. ID.; ID.; TRIP ABROAD FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES NO EXCUSE OR INFRINGING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 530. — The contention of the petitioner that he left the Philippines not on his own volition but at the instance of our government is belied by his own evidence which shows that his going abroad was principally for the benefit of the insurance company of which he is the executive vice president, general manager and chief administrative officer; and a letter of the President of the Philippines apparently giving him authority to go abroad as a representative of the Republic cannot give him comfort because said letter states that such trip would be at his own expense, and the formal appointment indicated therein to be given was never extended thus giving the impression that his designation was extended merely to accommodate him. Moreover, the best proof of his intention is revealed by his letter to the Solicitor General insisting on going abroad even at the sacrifice of losing the ground he had so far gained with respect to his application for citizenship.


    D E C I S I O N


    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


    On March 20, 1957, Petitioner was allowed to become a Filipino citizen in a resolution promulgated for that purpose subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530.

    Two years thereafter, or on March 17, 1959 to be exact, he filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City) praying that he be allowed to take the oath as a citizen of the Philippines. After hearing, the court denied the petition in an order issued on March 24, 1959. And when his motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner took the present appeal.

    It appears that during the two-year probation period, petitioner filed before the court a quo a petition to be allowed to leave the Philippines alleging that in a meeting held by the Board of Directors of the Fieldmen’s Insurance Company, Inc. he "was chosen to represent said company to foreign countries where they have business relations; that he intended to tour several countries in Europe, the United States, Canada and Mexico; and that he would be absent for not less than three months." Said petition was denied in an order issued on July 6, 1957 for the reason that Republic Act 530 prohibits an applicant for naturalization to leave the Philippines during the period prescribed therein. Whereupon, on July 30, 1957, petitioner wrote a letter to the Solicitor General manifesting that "even if it be revolting to him to be deprived of the honor and favor bestowed by the granting of citizenship," he must, as Chief Administrative Officer of the Fieldmen’s Insurance Company, Inc., "make the necessary contact with reinsurers abroad in the shortest time possible" and would, "if necessary, sacrifice the labor and expenses I have incurred, not to mention the moral anguish of losing the ground I have so far gained with respect to my subject application for such citizenship." Accordingly, petitioner went abroad on August 6, 1957 and returned to the Philippines on October 2, 1957, after visiting several countries in Europe and America.

    Petitioner now contends that he went abroad to gather information on insurance and re-insurance schemes being used in other countries in the interest of the country he represents but at the same time he was appointed by the President of the Philippines "as representative of the Republic of the Philippines to observe economic trends in connection with social security system and insurance treatises in foreign countries." With this contention he desires to convey the impression that he left the Philippines not on his own volition but at the instance of our government.

    This contention is belied by his own evidence. Thus, in his own letter to the Solicitor General mentioned elsewhere, he indicated that his purpose in going abroad was principally for the benefit of the Fieldmen’s Insurance Company, Inc. of which he is the Executive Vice President, General Manager, and Chief Administrative Officer elected by its Board of Directors to make the necessary contact with its re- insurers abroad in the shortest time possible. He emphasized that as such official it was his duty to establish fresh contact in the world re-insurance market for the re-insurers’ requirement of said company and that "he is going to journey in Europe and also in America, which trip is scheduled to be during the middle part of August, 1957 and is expected not to exceed the period of three months," all in behalf of the Fieldmen’s Insurance Company, Inc.

    It is true that petitioner is invoking in his behalf a letter of former President Carlos P. Garcia wherein apparently he was given authority to go abroad as a representative of the Republic of the Philippines "to observe economic trends in connection with Social Security System and insurance treatises in foreign countries." But this letter cannot give him comfort, for there it appears that he was to be given a formal appointment for that purpose but that his trip would be at his own expense. It also appears that such appointment was never extended. At any rate even if the required authority were given by our government still it could not erase the impression that his trip abroad was in the interest of his business concern for it is to be presumed that his-designation was extended merely to accommodate him just to give some official color to his trip. Certainly, such trip cannot furnish any valid justification for infringing the letter and spirit of Republic Act No. 530.

    The best proof of his intention is revealed in his letter to the Solicitor General dated July 30, 1957 wherein he stated that while it is revolting to him to be deprived of the honor and favor bestowed upon him when he was granted Philippine citizenship, however, because of the importance of his trip abroad, as it is for the interest of the economic condition of the Philippines in general and the Philippine insurance industries in particular, and in order not to prejudice the many stockholders, agents, associates and colleagues he has in his company, he would bow to the common need and, if necessary, would sacrifice the labor and expenses he had incurred, not to mention the moral anguish of losing the ground he has so far gained with respect to his application for citizenship. His pretense that he went abroad primarily to observe economic trends in connection with Social Security System as representative of our government, cannot, therefore, be entertained.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    It appearing that petitioner left the Philippines on August 6, 1957 and returned on October 2, 1957 during the two-year period he was required to stay in the Philippines, he, therefore, violated Republic Act No. 530, which requires that during that period an applicant for citizenship should not leave the Philippines.

    WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

    Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

    Labrador, Barrera and Regala, JJ., took no part.

    G.R. No. L-15998   May 26, 1964 - GUILLERMO ANTONIO IVANOVICH v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.


    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