Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17226. March 1, 1922. ]

L. S. MOON & CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honorable FRANCIS BURTON HARRISON, Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, Honorable DIONISIO JAKOSALEM, Secretary of Commerce and Communications, and Honorable JUSTO LUKBAN, Mayor of the city of Manila, Defendants-Appellees.

Thos. D. Aitken for Appellant.

Jose A. Santos for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE. — This court will take judicial knowledge of the fact that the Honorable Frances Burton Harrison is no longer the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, and for some time the position has been held by the Honorable Leonard Wood.

2. MOOT QUESTION. — Where the action is against the Governor-General in his official capacity, and the other defendants were acting under his orders, and no substitution of parties has been made, an injunction as to them is a moot question.

3. OFFICIAL ACTION. — By the pleadings the Governor-General was acting in his official capacity and engaged in the performance of the duty enjoined upon him by the Legislature of the Philippine Islands, and was exercising a discretionary power vested in him as Governor-General.

4. NOT LIABLE DAMAGES. — Whatever may be the rule as to the personal liability of a Governor, after a law been finally declared unconstitutional, he is not personally liable in damages for the exercise of discretionary power under a law before it has been declared unconstitutional.

5. LEGAL PRESUMPTION. — There is a legal presumption that any law enacted by the Legislature is valid, and the Governor-General had a legal right to assume that Act No. 2868 was valid.

6. DUTY TO ENFORCE. — it is the duty of the Governor-General to enforce the law until such time as it has legally been declared unconstitutional. To hold an Executive personally liable in an action for damages for the performance or nonperformance of official duty, in legal effect, would make him a judge as to when a law is or is not constitutional.

7. NO LIABILITY. — Assuming, without deciding, that there was a pro tanto confiscation of plaintiff’s property, under the facts alleged, the defendants are not personally liable in an action for damages.

8. ACTING FOR GOVERNOR. — In the commission of the alleged acts, the other defendants were acting for, and representing, the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, who was acting under a law enacted by its legislature, and hence they are not liable.


D E C I S I O N


STATEMENT

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and appellant "is a duly registered partnership, domiciled and doing business in Manila."cralaw virtua1aw library

"That the Hon. Francis Burton Harrison is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, and, as such, its Chief Executive; that the Hon. Dionisio Jakosalem is the duly appointed, qualified and the official designated by executive order of the said Governor-General as the executive in charge of rice, its sale and distribution in the Philippine Islands; that the said Justo Lukban is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Mayor of the city of Manila, and, as such, designated by the said Governor-General and Secretary of Commerce and Communications as their assistant in charge for the city of Manila of rice, its sale and distribution.

"That on September 24, the plaintiff was the owner of 2,3301/2 kilos of rice, No. 1 quality, imported from Siam at a cost to plaintiff of P26.32, Philippine currency, per cavan, and 150 cavans of glutinous rice imported from Hongkong on the 14th day of July, 1919, at a cost of P22.25

per cavan that the said rice at the time of its purchase was bought in the open market and at the then prevailing market prices.

"That defendants, pursuant to Act No. 2868 of the Philippine Legislature and pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 56 and 67 issued by authority of said Act, have seized the said 2,3301/2 kilos of Siam rice of plaintiff and deprived him of it, for the purpose of distribution to the public at large; that said seizure was made without compensation to plaintiff, although defendants have promised to pay therefor at the rate of P16.25, Philippine currency, a cavan and no more, which price is below the reasonable value of the rice and is unjust; that payment at said rate does not constitute just compensation and seizure under the circumstances alleged constitutes a confiscation of private property contrary to the fundamental and organic law of the Philippine Islands and an invasion of those constitutional rights that no one may be deprived of his property except by due process of law and with just compensation; that the just and reasonable value of the rice seized as aforesaid in Manila at the time of said seizures was with respect to the Siam rice mentioned P26.32 per cavan.

"That so much of said Act No. 2868 and its dependent Executive Orders that fix an arbitrary maximum selling price for rice and corn is unconstitutional and void as being in contravention of the Constitution of the United States and the Jones Bill, in so far as they guarantee to individuals the right to own and dispose of lawful property as they please and guarantee that the same may not be taken without due process of law and just compensation."cralaw virtua1aw library

That in so far as Act No. 2868 purports to make it a crime to sell rice above the maximum price fixed by Executive Orders, it is unconstitutional and an invasion of property rights guaranteed by the Jones Bill, and that defendants threaten prosecution for each violation.

It is further alleged that the action is brought on behalf certain firms and generally on behalf of all rice importers, and that the enforcement of the provisions of Act No. 2868 would result in a great multiplicity of civil and criminal actions, and that this case is one of common and general interest affecting alike all dealers and importers of rice and corn, and that the reasonable price of the rice seized and confiscated is P26.25 per cavan. Plaintiff prays judgment as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That defendants, their subordinates, agents, attorneys and employees be enjoined from further seizure of rice stocks.

Second. That defendants be ordered to return stocks seized as alleged or in lieu thereof pay to the owners a just and reasonable compensation therefor as may be fixed by this court.

Third. That so much of Act No. 2868 as permits the fixing of a maximum sale price for rice and corn and provides for the punishment of infractions of said law be declared unconstitutional and its enforcement enjoined.

Fourth. For such other and further relief as to this court may seem just and proper; to which the defendants filed the following demurrer:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action, because —

(1) The court has no jurisdiction to control by injunction the official acts of the Governor-General, and

(2) This is in effect a suit against the State.

II. There is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff, because, upon the facts alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff L. S. Moon & Co. has no right to sue on behalf of others not named in the complaint.

III. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because —

(1) Act No. 1868 of the Philippine Legislature is constitutional, in that its enactment was a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State;

(2) The facts stated in the complaint do not entitle the plaintiffs to the relief demanded, in that —

(a) Plaintiffs have another adequate remedy at law;

(b) The court has no jurisdiction to control by injunction the official acts of the Governor-General;

(c) "Plaintiff prays an injunction against the enforcement of a criminal statute upon the ground that it is unconstitutional; but the constitutionality of a criminal statute may not properly be determined in an against the Chief Executive for injunction, to prevent its enforcement. the validity of a criminal statute may be determined in a criminal action for an alleged violation thereof;" and

(d) "The action is against the defendants in their respective official capacities, and no facts are alleged which, if proved, would authorize a personal judgment against defendants for the value of the seized by them in their official capacities pursuant to a statute, even though the statute be unconstitutional, and the law does not authorize a money judgment against these defendants as public officials by reason of acts performed by them in their official capacities."cralaw virtua1aw library

IV. The complaint is, upon its face, ambiguous, intelligible and uncertain, particularly in the following respect, to wit: ". . . Plaintiff pleads irreparable injury by reason of the official acts of the defendants, and yet prays judgment against them for the return of the rice ’or in lieu thereof pay to the owners a just and reasonable compensation therefor as may fixed by this court.’"

Wherefore, defendants pray that the complaint be dismissed, with costs.

The trial court sustained the demurrer upon the second, third, and fourth grounds, and overruled it as to the first, to which ruling the plaintiff duly excepted.

The trial court sustained the demurrer upon the second, third, and fourth grounds, and overruled it as to the first, to which ruling the plaintiff duly excepted.

October 8, 1920, the court dismissed the action, to which the plaintiff duly excepted and appealed to this court, as signing the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I. The lower court erred in sustaining the second ground of demurrer to the second amended complaint to the effect that there was a misjoinder of parties plaintiff.

II. The lower court erred in sustaining the third ground of demurrer to the second amended complaint to the effect that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

III. The lower court erred in sustaining the fourth ground of demurrer to the second amended complaint to the effect that the complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.

IV. The lower court erred in not holding the acts complained of as and illegal invasion of private rights and the Act (No. 2868) authorizing them as unconstitutional.

V. The lower court erred in dismissing the action without first having had a trial on the merits.

JOHNS, J.:


The complaint is against "Honorable Frances Burton Harrison as Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, Honorable Dionisio Jakosalem as Secretary of Commerce and Communications, and Honorable Justo Lukban as Mayor of the city of Manila, Defendants," and it is specifically alleged "that the Hon. Dionisio Jakosalem is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Secretary of Commerce and Communications and the official designated by executive order of the said Governor-General as the executive in charge of rice, its sale and distribution in the Philippine Islands; that the said Justo Lukban is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Mayor of the city of Manila, and, as such, designated by the said Governor-General and Secretary of Commerce and Communications as their assistant in charge for the city of Manila of rice, its and distribution."cralaw virtua1aw library

That is to say, as to the acts claimed to have committed by the defendants Jakosalem and Lukban, it is specifically alleged that they were under and by virtue of the orders and instructions of the Governor-General, and that in the commission of the alleged acts, they were simply obeying the Governor-General, who was their superior officer.

At time of their commission and the filing of the complaint, Honorable Francis Burton Harrison was the duly appointed, qualified and acting Governor-General of the Philippine Islands. This court will take judicial knowledge of the fact that he no longer holds that position, and that for some time it has been held by the Honorable Leonard Wood.

The complaint is against the Honorable Francis Burton Harrison as Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, and is not against him as a citizen or private person. No motion has been filed for a substitution of parties, and no order of substitution has been made. Hence, you have a case pending against defendants who were acting under the orders of a Governor-General, who has ceased to be Governor-General. The complaint prays "that the defendants, their subordinates, agents, attorneys and employees be enjoined from further seizure of rice stocks." Upon that branch of the case, and injunction against the defendants has become, and is now, a moot question. The action is against the Governor-General in his official capacity, and he no longer holds that position. The alleged acts of Jakosalem and Lukban were committed by them as agents and servants of the Governor-General. It must follow that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction against the defendants. A restraining order as to them would be vain and useless.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the 2,3301/2 kilos of rice was of the market value and reasonably worth P26.32, Philippine currency, per cavan, and that the defendants seized the rice and took it away from the plaintiff, "for the purpose of distribution to the public at large," and that they have promised to pay him P16.25, Philippine currency, a cavan, and are not willing to pay any more, and that the seizure was a confiscation of private property contrary to the fundamental and organic law of the Philippine Islands, and in violation of a constitutional right. The complaint alleges that the were committed under Act No. 2868 of the Philippine Legislature, and pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 56 and 67 issued by authority of said Act.

Section 1 of the Act says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Governor-General is hereby authorized, whenever, for any cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate, with the consent of the Council of State, temporary rules and emergency measure for carrying out the purposes of this Act, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) To prevent the monopoly and hoarding of, and speculation in palay, rice or corn.

"(b) To establish and maintain a government control of the distribution or sale of the commodities referred to or have such
Top of Page