GR 18212; (December, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18212 December 8, 1964
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ONG GIOK LIN alias BENJAMIN ONG TO BECOME A FILIPINO CITIZEN. ONG GIOK LIN alias BENJAMIN ONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
The Republic of the Philippines appealed a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Leyte granting the petition of Ong Giok Lin alias Benjamin Ong to become a Filipino citizen. The Solicitor General’s opposition was based on the testimony of witnesses Dr. Hermenegildo Serafica and Flaviano Cabaña. The evidence showed that Ong, who managed his mother-in-law’s lumber business, approached Cabaña, an employee of Dr. Serafica, during a time when the Ormoc city government was requisitioning a large amount of lumber. Ong proposed to Cabaña that they agree on a price so the government would pay a higher than usual price, and they would divide the profit. Cabaña said he would inform his employer. Later, Ong went to Dr. Serafica’s office to follow up. In rebuttal, Ong testified that it was Dr. Serafica who summoned him and proposed that Ong abstain from bidding so Serafica could win, to which Ong replied he could not decide as he was not the owner. The trial court overruled the opposition.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, Ong Giok Lin alias Benjamin Ong, possesses the irreproachable moral character required by the Naturalization Law to be admitted to Philippine citizenship.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the petition for naturalization. The Court held that the evidence presented by the oppositor, particularly the concordant testimony of Dr. Serafica and Flaviano Cabaña, sufficiently established that the applicant’s moral character and conduct were not irreproachable as required by law. The Court found that the applicant was involved in maneuvers aimed at restricting free competition to the detriment of the general interest. Even accepting Ong’s version of events, his non-committal response and subsequent absence from the bidding, which allowed Serafica to win, indicated he was not minded to reject the dishonest proposal. The fact that Ong managed his mother-in-law’s business did not mitigate the derogatory effect of the evidence against his character. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet the statutory requirement of being morally irreproachable.