ALFONSO ZOBEL, G. H. W. CHURCHILL AND J. ANTONIO ARANETA, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. AND ANTONIO G. ALINDOGAN, FISCAL AND ASSISTANT FISCAL, RESPE…

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon.
Jesus Y. Perez, presiding, dismissing a petition for prohibition filed
by Alfonso Zobel and others against the Fiscal Hermogenes Concepcion
and others of the City of Manila.

The facts leading to the filing of the action may be briefly stated as follows:

On December 29, 1959, Gavino S. Abaya wrote a letter to petitioner
Alfonso Zobel demanding an additional payment equivalent to about 30%
of P517,903, the price agreed upon in the deed of absolute sale of a
parcel of land belonging to the children of the former, executed in
favor of the Ayala Securities Corporation, of which petitioner Zobel is
the president. Zobel refused to accede to this demand, so Abaya
presented to the National Bureau of Investigation the charge that
petitioner J. Antonio Araneta (who intervened in the sale of the
above-mentioned property) and/or the Ayala Securities Corporation acted
as dummy for the Shell Refining Company (Phils.), Inc., in violation of
Commonwealth Act No. 108, otherwise known as the Anti-Dummy Law. On
January 13, 1960, the acting director of the NBI, Jose G. Lukban,
endorsed the charge to the Anti-Dummy Board which took cognizance and
conducted an investigation of the same. Petitioners, as well as Gavino
S. Abaya, testified before and submitted evidence to the Anti-Dummy
Board. While the case was pending decision by the Board, Gavino S.
Abaya addressed a letter to the city fiscal of Manila, charging
petitioners of the same violation of Commonwealth Act No. 108. The
charge was docketed in the city fiscal’s office as I. S. No. 24331 and
assigned to respondent assistant fiscal Antonio G. Alindogan for
investigation. The latter subpoenaed petitioners to appear and testify
at the investigation of the charge on October 24, I960, which was later
postponed to September 15,1960. Prior to the investigation scheduled
for the latter date, petitioner Zobel filed with respondent Alindogan a
motion praying that the charge filed by Mr. Abaya with the fiscal’s
office be dismissed because (1) the fiscal’s office had no jurisdiction
to investigate the charge since the complainant Gavino S. Abaya did not
have the legal personality to file charges against petitioners for
violation of the Anti-Dummy Law, and (2) the fiscal of Manila was not
authorized by law to investigate violations of the Anti-Dummy Law
independently of the Anti-Dummy Board. On October 18, 1960, respondent
Alindogan issued a resolution denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss
and gave notice that he would proceed with the investigation of the
charge of Mr. Abaya on October 20, 1960.

On October 20, 1960, petitioners filed with the Court of First
Instance of Manila, a petition for prohibition with preliminary
injunction to prohibit and enjoin respondents from proceeding with the
investigation of the alleged violation of the Anti-Dummy Law. The lower
court on the same day denied the petition, and on November 5, 1960,
also denied a motion to reconsider its order of denial. From these two
orders petitioners have appealed to this Court.

On this appeal petitioners-appellants assign the following error:

The lower court erred in holding that respondent
fiscals have the power to investigate the complaint against
petitioners-appellants for alleged violation of Commonwealth Act No.
108 (Anti-Dummy Law) notwithstanding the previous investigation already
conducted by the Anti-Dummy Board of the same complaint.

Republic Act No. 1130, which creates the Anti-Dummy Board, contains the following pertinent provisions:

“Section 1. There is hereby created in the Department of Justice a board which shall be designated and known as the Anti-Dummy

Board and which shall be vested with and shall exercise the powers and duties hereinafter specified. * * *”

“Sec. 2. The main purpose. of the Anti-Dummy Board
shall be to insure the implementation of all the provisions of the
Constitution, nationalization laws, and other legal provisions which
require Philippine citizenship or citizenship of any other specific
country for the exercise or enjoyment of a right, franchise or
privilege, property or business, and further, to Coordinate, as far as
practicable all government agencies charged with the enforcement of the
said provisions of the Constitution and laws and, in particular,
Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred and eight, as amended, commonly
known as the Anti-Dummy Law, * * * “

“Sec. 3. The Anti-Dummy Board shall have the following duties:

“(a) To investigate violations and
prosecute all violators of the laws mentioned in section two of this
Act, hereinafter called dummies.

“(b) To furnish
professional services to informers who wish to avail themselves of
section three-A of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred and eight, as
inserted therein by Republic Act Numbered One hundred and thirty-four.

“(c) To enter as amicus curiae in all court cases which may have arisen from dummy cases.

“(d) To devise ways and means for the carrying out of an educational propaganda against dummies.

“(e) To devise ways and means for the carrying out of all nationalization legislation.

“(f)
To organize local subcommittees in the chartered cities and
municipalities and a provincial chapter in every capital of the
provinces to help the Board in its campaigns against dummies.

“(g)
To issue rules and regulations for the government of the Board and that
of the subcommittees and chapters to be established under the
provisions hereof; and

“(h) To perform such other duties as may enable the Board to carry out the purposes for which it has been created.”

“SEC. 6. * * *

“The
Anti-Dummy Board may appoint attorneys, investigators and other
employees as it may deem necessary and fix their duties and salaries: Provided,
That investigators appointed by the Board shall be lawyers, and/or
certified public accountants, the proportion of the number of lawyers
and accountants to be at the discretion of the Board. Each investigator
shall receive a salary of at least three thousand six hundred pesos per annum.

The
President, may upon recommendation of the Board, detail one or more
assistant provincial fiscals or assistant attorneys under the
Department of Justice, or any other employees in the National,
provincial, city or municipal governments, on special duty with the
Board. Employees so detailed shall perform such duty as is required
under such detail, and the tune so employed shall count as part of
their regular official service.”

Petitioners-appellants argue before Us that Section 3S-B of the
Revised Charter of Manila granting authority to the city fiscal to
prosecute all violations of Jaws and ordinances should be harmonized
with the provisions of Republic Act No. 1130 insofar as Anti-Dummy
cases are concerned, otherwise the city fiscal and Anti-Dummy Board
would be exercising overlapping authorities over violations of the
Anti-Dummy Law; that were the city fiscal allowed independently to
investigate and prosecute violations of anti-dummy laws, the provisions
of Republic Act No. 1130 granting the Anti-Dummy Board the right to
coordinate all government agencies charged with the enforcement of the
anti-dummy laws, would be violated. Answering the contention of the
respondents-appellees that the Revised Charter of the City of Manila
grants them power to prosecute all violations of laws and ordinances,
and therefore, violations of the anti-dummy laws should be included,
petitioners-appellants argue that since Republic Act No. 1130 is a
special act, its provisions should be interpreted to amend or modify or
restrict in a way the general power vested in the city fiscal insofar
as the violations of the anti-dummy laws are concerned.

We find reason and sense in the above arguments of the
petitioners-appellants. Under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 1130, the
President may, upon recommendation of the Board detail one or more
assistant provincial fiscals or assistant attorneys in the Department
of Justice or any other employee of the national, city or provincial
government on special duty with the Board. If respondents-appellees’
contention were correct, that the city fiscal of Manila can prosecute
violations of the Anti-Dummy Law independently and without coordination
with the agencies of the Anti-Dummy Board, there would be no need for
this provision. Were the city fiscal or the provincial fiscals who have
the power or right to prosecute violations of all laws and ordinances
allowed to prosecute violations of the Anti-Dummy Law independently of
the Anti-Dummy Board, there would be no order, concert, cooperation,
and coordination between the said agencies of the government. The
function of coordination which is entrusted to the Anti Dummy Board is
evident from all the above-quoted provisions of Republic Act No. 1130.
There can be no coordination as envisioned in the law unless the
Anti-Dummy Board be given the power to direct and control the city
fiscal in prosecutions of the violations of the Anti-Dummy Law.

We, therefore, find that the appeal is meritorious and hereby
declare that the court below should have granted the petition for
prohibition and issued the writ of preliminary injunction. The orders
appealed from are hereby set aside and the writ of prohibition prayed
for issued against the respondents-appellees. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.