FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 9166. October 1, 1915. ]
CHAN YICK SAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Defendant-Appellee.
Beaumont & Tenney for Appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PROHIBITION; RIGHT OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MANILA TO MAKE CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL. — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, in compliance with an order of the Governor-General, has, in accordance with Act No. 2113, the authority to examine witnesses concerning certain charges against aliens who are suspected of inciting the perpetration of certain acts against the safety, welfare, and peace of the Chinese community in the city of Manila and of being persons subject to deportation. (Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil. Rep., 534; 228 U. S., 549.)
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
The present was an original action commenced in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. Its purpose was to secure a writ of prohibition against the prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, to prohibit him from making a certain investigation which he had been ordered to make by the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, which order of the Governor-General was based upon Act No. 2113 of the Philippine Legislature.
It appears from the record that on the 1st of March, 1913, W. H. Bishop, then prosecuting attorney of the city Of Manila, gave to the plaintiff herein a notice in words and figures as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"To CHAN YICK SAM, 604 Calle Gandara.
"Whereas, it has been called to the attention of His Excellency, the Governor-General, by the Chinese Consul-General, that you are a foreigner, residing within the Philippine Islands, and that you are a person whose deportation, expulsion, exclusion or repatriation is subject to investigation, under the provisions of Act No. 2113 of the Philippine Legislature of February 1, 1912, and
"Whereas, His Excellency has designated the undersigned as his agent to notify you of the proposed investigation and hearing, and to take the testimony in reference to such charge and to report with my recommendation the result of such hearing,
"This is to notify you that I am citing a number of witnesses to appear before me at my office, at No. 53 Calle Palacio, Walled City, P. I., upon March 5, 1913, at 8 o’clock a. m. on behalf of the prosecution.
"The charges are of ’inciting the perpetration of action against the safety, welfare and peace of the Chinese community of the city of Manila’ and ’of being a person subject to deportation, as provided for by the above Act.’
"Hence, this notice that you may prepare your defense and have an opportunity to appear either in person, or by counsel, and to cross examine the witnesses who may be presented by the prosecution and present witnesses on your behalf.
"Manila, March 1, 1913.
(Sgd.) "W. H. BISHOP, Prosecuting Attorney."cralaw virtua1aw library
The foregoing notice was made a part of the petition.
To the petition the defendants presented the following demurrer:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"First. That the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the respondent in that ’W. H. Bishop, prosecuting attorney,’ the agent of the Governor-General, the head of the Executive Department, is not an ’inferior person,’ within the meaning of the law.
"Second. That there is a misjoinder of parties defendant in that neither W. H. Bishop, the agent, nor W. Cameron Forbes, the principal, Executive of the Philippine Island are named as defendants.
"Third. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) The act which it is sought to enjoin and prohibit is discretionary.
"(b) The petitioner has another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law — appearance and hearing before ’W. H. Bishop, prosecuting attorney,’ and later on appeal before the Governor-General.
"(c) The commission or continuance of no act complained of will work an injustice to the petitioner, for a judicial hearing only is contemplated by ’W. H. Bishop, prosecuting attorney.’
"(d) The respondent, ’prosecuting attorney o
It appears from the record that on the 1st of March, 1913, W. H. Bishop, then prosecuting attorney of the city Of Manila, gave to the plaintiff herein a notice in words and figures as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"To CHAN YICK SAM, 604 Calle Gandara.
"Whereas, it has been called to the attention of His Excellency, the Governor-General, by the Chinese Consul-General, that you are a foreigner, residing within the Philippine Islands, and that you are a person whose deportation, expulsion, exclusion or repatriation is subject to investigation, under the provisions of Act No. 2113 of the Philippine Legislature of February 1, 1912, and
"Whereas, His Excellency has designated the undersigned as his agent to notify you of the proposed investigation and hearing, and to take the testimony in reference to such charge and to report with my recommendation the result of such hearing,
"This is to notify you that I am citing a number of witnesses to appear before me at my office, at No. 53 Calle Palacio, Walled City, P. I., upon March 5, 1913, at 8 o’clock a. m. on behalf of the prosecution.
"The charges are of ’inciting the perpetration of action against the safety, welfare and peace of the Chinese community of the city of Manila’ and ’of being a person subject to deportation, as provided for by the above Act.’
"Hence, this notice that you may prepare your defense and have an opportunity to appear either in person, or by counsel, and to cross examine the witnesses who may be presented by the prosecution and present witnesses on your behalf.
"Manila, March 1, 1913.
(Sgd.) "W. H. BISHOP, Prosecuting Attorney."cralaw virtua1aw library
The foregoing notice was made a part of the petition.
To the petition the defendants presented the following demurrer:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"First. That the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the respondent in that ’W. H. Bishop, prosecuting attorney,’ the agent of the Governor-General, the head of the Executive Department, is not an ’inferior person,’ within the meaning of the law.
"Second. That there is a misjoinder of parties defendant in that neither W. H. Bishop, the agent, nor W. Cameron Forbes, the principal, Executive of the Philippine Island are named as defendants.
"Third. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(a) The act which it is sought to enjoin and prohibit is discretionary.
"(b) The petitioner has another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law — appearance and hearing before ’W. H. Bishop, prosecuting attorney,’ and later on appeal before the Governor-General.
"(c) The commission or continuance of no act complained of will work an injustice to the petitioner, for a judicial hearing only is contemplated by ’W. H. Bishop, prosecuting attorney.’
"(d) The respondent, ’prosecuting attorney o
