LOO SING, ON BEHALF OF LOO GEE, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

From the record it appears that on or about the 12th day of October, 1912,
the said Loo Sing, of the age of 52 years, and his three alleged sons Loo Tong,
of the age of 20 years, Loo Gee, of the age of 18 years, and Loo Lai, of the age
of 16 years, arrived in the Philippine Islands on the steamship Rubi, and were
detained at Mariveles by the quarantine officers until the 21st day of October,
when they were brought to the port of Manila. Some question arose concerning
their right to enter the Philippine Islands and the board of special inquiry of
the port of Manila commenced an investigation for the purpose of determining
that question. At the conclusion of said investigation, the board found that Loo
Sing was a naturalized citizen of the Hawaiian Kingdom, prior to the ownership
of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States, and had become a citizen of the
United States upon the establishment of the United States government there and
was, therefore, entitled to be admitted into the Philippine Islands as an
American citizen. The said board, however, found that the three alleged sons,
Loo Tong, Loo Gee, and Loo Lai, were not entitled to enter, for the reason that
they had furnished no proof sufficient to justify their claim.

From that conclusion an appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs. During
the pendency of the appeal, the Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands
sent a communication to the customs authorities at Honolulu, asking them to make
an investigation and a report concerning the right of the said Loo Sing and his
three alleged children to enter the Philippine Islands. Said communication was
duly received by the customs authorities at Honolulu, and in the month of
December (December 3 and 4), 1912, an investigation was had by said customs
authorities. The report of said investigation was duly received by the Collector
of Customs of the Philippine Islands. Whereupon he examined the appeal
theretofore made by the three sons, taking into consideration, in relation with
the proof taken before the board of special inquiry, the evidence adduced before
the customs authorities at Honolulu, and thereafter ordered a rehearing before
the said board of special inquiry, for the purpose of reconsidering the right of
the three alleged sons to enter the Philippine Islands.

The second hearing before the board of special inquiry was commenced on
January 8, 1913, and additional proof was adduced. At the conclusion of the
second hearing, the board of special inquiry, after considering all of the proof
that had been adduced before it, as well as the report submitted by the customs
authorities at Honolulu, arrived at the conclusion that two of the alleged sons,
Loo Tong and Loo Lai, were the legitimate minor sons of Loo Sing, and were
therefore entitled to be admitted into the Philippine Islands. Said board
further found that the proof did not show that Loo Gee was the legitimate son of
Loo Sing, and denied his right to enter the Philippine Islands.

From that conclusion an appeal was taken to the Collector of Customs on
behalf of Loo Gee. The Collector of Customs, upon a consideration of the second
appeal, rendered his decision on the 29th day of January, 1913, and again
considering the report t)f the customs authorities of Honolulu, in relation with
the proof taken before the board of special inquiry, affirmed the conclusions of
the board and refused Loo Gee the right to enter the Philippine Islands.

Thereafter, and on the 17th day of September, 1913, the said Loo Sing, on
behalf of his alleged son Lob Gee, presented a petition for the writ of habeas
corpus in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. The Collector of
Customs made a return to the order to show cause, in which he set forth all of
the proof taken before the board of special inquiry of Manila, as well as that
taken before the customs authorities in Honolulu. All of the questions were
submitted to the Court of First Instance upon the record and the return made by
the Collector of Customs.

After a consideration of all of the facts contained in the record, the
Honorable A. S. Crossfield, judge, found that the customs authorities of the
Philippine Islands had disregarded all of the evidence before it and that the
ruling of the Insular Collector of Customs was an abuse of authority which
should be set aside, and granted the writ of habeas corpus and admitted the said
Loo Gee into the Philippine Islands. From that decision the Collector of Customs
appealed to this court and presented here a brief in support of his appeal. The
appellee also presented a brief.

The appellee, in his petition for the writ of habeas corpus, alleged that
there was no proof adduced before the board of special inquiry which showed or
tended to show that he was not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands as the
legitimate son of Loo Sing. He also alleges that the ex parte investigation held
by the customs authorities at Honolulu, without giving him an opportunity to
refute or explain the facts obtained by the said investigation, constituted an
abuse of the authority and the power reposed in the said Collector of Customs.
The rule that the judicial department of the Government will not
interfere for the purpose of modifying or reversing the conclusions of the
Collector of Customs in immigration cases, when his conclusions are based upon
some evidence justifying them and when the parties have been given a
fair and full hearing, is so well established that it seems unnecessary now to
cite cases in support of it. In the present case, however, we have the question
presented whether or not an immigrant is given a fair and full hearing when an
investigation is held, concerning his right to enter, during his absence,
without his knowledge or information and when he had no opportunity to hear and
to cross-examine the witnesses presented against him. From the record and from
the decision of the Collector of Customs it appears clearly that the report of
the investigation made by the customs authorities in Honolulu influenced his
conclusion in denying the right of Loo Gee to enter the Philippine Islands.
Neither Loo Gee nor his alleged father were permitted to be present at Honolulu
at the time of the investigation, nor were they permitted to refute any of the
statements or conclusions made by the Collector of Customs, nor to introduce
evidence contrary to the proof adduced at the said Honolulu investigation. There
is much proof in the record given by the witnesses before the board of special
inquiry which seems to refute the proof found in the report made by the customs
authorities in Honolulu; but, inasmuch as the Collector of Customs, as well as
the board of special inquiry, seems to have based his conclusions almost wholly
upon the report from Honolulu, and inasmuch as the petitioners herein were not
given an opportunity to see the witnesses whose declarations were taken at
Honolulu and to cross-examine theni and to explain their testimony or to refute
it absolutely, we are of the opinion that a rehearing” should be granted, upon
the ground that the petitioners have not had a fair and full
hearing and that the case should be remanded to the Court of First Instance of
the city of Manila, with direction that an order be made returning the record to
the Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands, in order that he may take
such steps in the premises as he may deem wise and necessary, to the end that
the petitioners may have an opportunity to have a full free, and fair hearing.
Without any findings as to costs, it is so ordered.

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