King v Hernaez

Doctrine: REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS – antecedents and consequences should be taken distributively

FACTS:

Macario King, a naturalized Filipino citizen, became the owner of the business establishment
known as "Import Meat and Produce", a grocery wholesale and retail business, previously owned by the
Philippine Cold Stores, Inc. There are three Chinese were old employees of the previous owner, the
Philippine Cold Stores, Inc., one having been employed as purchaser and the other two as salesmen.

Three weeks after King had acquired the business; he sought permission from the President of
the Philippines to retain the services of the three Chinese employees pursuant to Section 2-A of
Commonwealth Act 108, coursing his letter thru the Secretary of Commerce and Industry. This official
recommended to the President the disapproval of King's request on the ground that aliens may not be
appointed to operate or administer a retail business under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1180(Retail
Trade Nationalization Act) which requires that its capital be wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines,
the only exception thereto being the employment of technical personnel which may be allowed after
securing to that effect an authorization from the President. The President approved the
recommendation of the Secretary of Commerce and Industry since the positions of purchaser and
salesmen occupied by the three Chinese employees are not technical positions within the meaning of
Section 2-A of Commonwealth Act 108, as amended by Republic Act No. 134.

As a result of such adverse ruling, Macario King and his three Chinese employees filed a petition
for declaratory relief, injunction and mandamus

Issues:

1) Is the employment of aliens in non-control position in a retail establishment or trade

prohibited by the Anti-Dummy Law?

2)w/o the Chinese holding a non-control position in the retail establishment, comes within the
prohibition against aliens intervening “in the management, operation, administration or control”
followed by the phrase “whether as an officer, employee, laborer….”

Held:

1) Yes. It was held that RA No. 1180 otherwise known as the Retail Trade Nationalization Act, implies that
the nationalization of the retail trade is merely confined to its ownership and not to management,
control or operation. Nevertheless, the court said that this apparent flaw in the law cannot be availed of
by an unscrupulous alien as a convenient pretext to flout the law or subvert its nationalistic purpose, for
in pari material with such law is Commonwealth Act No. 108, otherwise known as the Anti-Dummy Law,
which punishes “acts of evasion of the laws of nationalization of certain rights, franchises or privileges,”
such as the employment of aliens in wholly or partly nationalized businesses.

2) Following the doctrine of reddendo singular singulis the entire scope of personnel activity, including
that of laborers, is covered by the prohibition against the employment of aliens, it added that by reading
the words “management, operation, administration or control” and the consequents "officer, employee,
and laborer" should be read distributively to the effect that each word is to be applied to the subject to
which it appears by context most properly relate and to which it is most applicable