KING vs HERNAEZ MACARIO KING, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. PEDRO S. HERNAEZ, ETC., ETAL., respondents-appellants.

FACTSMacario King, a naturalized Filipino citizenImport Meat and Produce"Philippine Cold Stores, Inc permission from the President of the Philippines(Secretary of Commerce and Industry)DENIED petition for declaratory relief, injunction and mandamus(Court of First Instance of Manila) writ of preliminary appeal __ (RETAIL TRADE LAW)Section 1, Republic Act No. 1180 No person who is not a citizen of the Philippines, and no association, partnership, or corporation the capital of which is not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, shallengage directly or indirectly in the retail business: . ." mphasis supplied)(x) merely to ban them from its ownership and not from its management control or operation. (Anti-Dummy Law )Commonwealth Act No. 108, as amended by Republic Act No.134) which seeks "to punish acts of evasion of the laws of nationalization of certain rights,f r a n c h i s e s o r p r i v i l e g e s . " R e a d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e R e t a i l T r a d e L a w , t h e A n t i - Dummy Law would punish acts intended to circumvent the provisions of the former lawwhich nationalize the retail business.Itchong CaseISSUEIs the employment of aliens in non-control position in a retail establishment or trade prohibited by the AntiDummy Law?RULINGYes, it is prohibited.Against retail trade law and Anti-dummy law(X)unconsti-right of employer to chooseThe nationalization of an economic measure when founded on grounds of public policyc a n n o t b e b r a n d e d a s u n j u s t , a r b i t r a r y or oppressive or contrary to the Constitution because its aim is merely to further the material progress and welfare of the citizens of acountry.Indeed, in nationalizing employment in retail trade the right of choice of an employer isnot impaired but its sphere is merely limited to the citizens to the exclusion of those of other nationalities.falls within the scope of police power, thru which and by which the State insures itsexistence and security and the supreme welfare of its citizensW H E R E F O R E , t h e d e c i s i o n a p p e a l e d f r o m i s r e v e r s e d . T h i s p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n issued by the trial court on December 6, 1958 is hereby lifted. The petition for mandamusis dismissed, with costs against appellees.