CASE DIGEST: DIALDAS v. MAYOR PERDICES

Date Published:

G.R. No. L-8467. June 28, 1957. HASSARAM DIALDAS and LACHMI HASSARAM, Petitioners-Appellants, v. MARIANO PERDICES, as City Mayor of Dumaguete City, Respondent-Appellee.

FACTS: 

Petitioners are aliens engaged in retail business who have a store in Cebu City. Due to the failing business conditions obtained in Cebu City, they decided to transfer their business to Dumaguete City. After looking for a good location, Petitioners’ deadline for the payment of taxes was due however the City Treasurer of Dumaguete refused to let Petitioners pay the same, and because the City Mayor of Dumaguete was about to order the closing of Petitioners’ store in view of the nationalization bill. Petitioners then filed a petition praying for a clear declaration of their rights under the Retail Business Act and for prohibiting the City Mayor from issuing an order closing the store of the Petitioners. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: 

a. Whether aliens are allowed under RA 1180 to transfer their business to another place.

b. Whether the petitioners could be considered as having retired voluntarily from business because they closed their store in Cebu City and transferred it to Dumaguete City in view of the failing condition of their business in the former place

RULING:

a. Yes, aliens who prior to the approval of RA 1180 were already merchants engaged in the retail business, under the provisions of said law, have the right to continue their business and to secure the corresponding licenses therefore.

b. No, the Petitioners cannot be considered as having retired voluntarily from business because they only closed their store and transferred it to another place due to failing conditions of their business in the former place.

In the Retail Business Act, it only disallows the putting up of an entirely new or additional business site and not the physical movement of an existing one and those actually engaged in the retail business at the time it was approved shall be entitled to continue to engage in the business unless their license is forfeited.

Here, the Petitioners were already engaged in the retail business prior to the said act therefore they shall continue to engage in business. On the matter regarding their transfer of business, their intention was not to retire voluntarily from business but only to transfer it to Dumaguete because of the failing condition of said business in Cebu. Hence, Petitioners are still allowed to engage in retail business under the Nationalization Bill.