Lee Yick Hon.customs

8/2/2019 Lee Yick Hon.customs

1/13

LEE YICK HON vs.

THE INSULAR COLLECTOROF CUSTOMS

G.R. No. L-6779March 30, 1921


2/13

Nature of the Case

This is an appeal by the Insular Collectorof Customs from the action of the CFI of Manila in imposing upon him a fine of P50for an alleged contempt of court.


3/13

Facts

On July 23, 1920, a petition for the writof habeas corpus was filed in the CFI of Manila by one Lee Yick Hon.He alleged that he had lately arrived fromChina at the port of Manila with a view toentering the Philippine Islands, but wasprevented from so doing by the InsularCollector of Customs, who was detaininghim for deportation.


4/13

Citation

Upon the presiding in Sala IV of said court, citedthe collector to appear and show cause inwriting why the writ of habeas corpus should notbe issued as prayed.Citation was served at about 11 a.m., at whichhouse arrangement had already been perfectedfor the deportation of Lee Yick Hon on a boatscheduled to leave Manila for Hongkong at noonon the same day;Insular Collector failed to contermand the orderfor his embarcation on that boat.


5/13

The Result

Lee Yick Hon was deported within two orthree hours after the Insular Collector hadbeen served with the citation to showcause in the habeas corpus proceeding.Contempt proceedings were institutedagainst the Insular Collector.CFI of Manila imposed upon him a fine of P50.


6/13

Issue

W/N any lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command of the court or judge below was disobeyed or resisted bythe appellant.


7/13

RulingNone. The citation that was served upon theappellant required him to appear at a stated time inthe CFI of Manila and show cause if any there mightbe, why the writ prayed for should not issue.

Citation was literally complied with when, on July30, 1920, the Attorney-General, on behalf of theInsular Collector, filed his answer.The sole ground relied upon to sustain the judgmentfinding the appellant guilty to contempt is that byallowing Lee Yick Hon to be deported under theconditions stated he has frustrated the possibleissuance of the writ of habeas corpus for whichapplication had been made.


8/13

Citation is NOT the peremptory writof habeas corpus

At this point attention should be directedto the fact that the order to show cause, acopy of which was served on the InsularCollector of Customs on July 23, 1920, isnot the peremptory writ of habeas corpus ,unconditionally commanding the

respondent to have the body of thedetained person before the court at a timeand place therein specified.


9/13

Preliminary CitationThe order served in the case was merely apreliminary citation requiring the respondent toappear and show cause why the peremptorywrit should not be granted.

The practice of issuing a preliminary citation of this character, upon applications for the writof habeas corpus , has become common in ourcourts; and upon considerations of practicalconvenience, the usage has must be commendit, in cases where the necessity for theimmediate issuance of the peremptory writ isnot manifest.


10/13

No ContemptIt is necessary to take account of thedifference between the preliminary citationand the real writ of habeas corpus ; and whenadvertence is had to this point, and theactual terms of the citation are considered, itis at one obvious that the appellant did notput himself in contempt by allowing Lee Yick Hon to be deported.The judge could have added to the citation anadmonition to the effect that the petitioner shouldnot be deported until his application for the writof habeas corpus should be heard. If a temporaryrestraining order of that kind had been issued, it

would no doubt have been respected.


11/13

No ContemptIt is well settled that a person cannot be held liablefor contempt in the violation of an injunction or infact of any judicial order unless the act which isforbidden or required to be done is clearly andexactly defined, so as to leave no reasonable doubtor uncertainty as to what specific act or thing isforbidden or required.

A party cannot be punished for contempt in failing

to do something not specified in the order.In this case, the deportation of the petitioner Leewas not forbidden by any order of the court, andhence that act cannot be considered as

disobedience to the court.


12/13


13/13

Documents

Lee Yick Hon.customs