1 full text cases
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
1/18
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017 June 19, 2008
LT. GEN. ALFONSO P. DAGUDAG (Ret.),complainant,
vs.
JUDGE MAXIMO G.W. PADERANGA, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro City,respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM,J.:
This is a complaint for gross ignorance of the law and conduct
unbecoming a judge filed by retired Lt. Gen. Alfonso P. Dagudag
(Gen. Dagudag), Head of Task Force Sagip Kalikasan, against
Judge Maximo G. W. Paderanga (Judge Paderanga), Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro City.
On or about 30 January 2005, the Region VII Philippine National
Police Regional Maritime Group (PNPRMG) received information
that MV General Ricarte of NMC Container Lines, Inc. was
shipping container vans containing illegal forest products from
Cagayan de Oro to Cebu. The shipments were falsely declared as
cassava meal and corn grains to avoid inspection by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).1
On 30 and 31 January 2005, a team composed of representatives
from the PNPRMG, DENR, and the Philippine Coast Guard
inspected the container vans at a port in Mandaue City, Cebu. The
team discovered the undocumented forest products and the
names of the shippers and consignees:
Container Van No. Shipper Consignee
NCLU 2000492-22GI Polaris Chua Polaris Chua
IEAU 2521845-2210 Polaris Chua Polaris Chua
NOLU 2000682-22GI Rowena Balangot Rowena Balangot
INBU 3125757-BB2210 Rowena Balangot Rowena Balangot
NCLU 20001591-22GI Jovan Gomez Jovan Gomez
GSTU 339074-US2210 Jovan Gomez Jovan Gomez
CRXU 2167567 Raffy Enriquez Raffy Enriquez
NCLU 2001570-22GI Raffy Enriquez Raffy Enriquez
The crew of MV General Ricarte failed to produce the certificate
of origin forms and other pertinent transport documents
covering the forest products, as required by DENR
Administrative Order No. 07-94. Gen. Dagudag alleged that, since
nobody claimed the forest products within a reasonable period of
time, the DENR considered them as abandoned and, on 31
January 2005, the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Office (PENRO) Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Richard N. Abella, issued
a seizure receipt to NMC Container Lines, Inc.2
On 1 February 2005, Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) OIC Loreto A. Rivac (Rivac) sent a
notice to NMC Container Lines, Inc. asking for explanation why
the government should not confiscate the forest products.3In an
affidavit4dated 9 February 2005, NMC Container Lines, Inc.sBranch Manager Alex Conrad M. Seno stated that he did not see
any reason why the government should not confiscate the forest
products and that NMC Container Lines, Inc. had no knowledge of
the actual content of the container vans.
On 2, 9, and 15 February 2005, DENR Forest Protection Officer
Lucio S. Canete, Jr. posted notices on the CENRO and PENRO
bulletin boards and at the NMC Container Lines, Inc. building
informing the unknown owner about the administrative
adjudication scheduled on 18 February 2005 at the Cebu City
CENRO. Nobody appeared during the adjudication.5In a
resolution6dated 10 March 2005, Rivac, acting as adjudication
officer, recommended to DENR Regional Executive Director
Clarence L. Baguilat that the forest products be confiscated in
favor of the government.
In a complaint7dated 16 March 2005 and filed before Judge
Paderanga, a certain Roger C. Edma (Edma) prayed that a writ of
replevin be issued ordering the defendants DENR, CENRO, Gen
Dagudag, and others to deliver the forest products to him and
that judgment be rendered ordering the defendants to pay him
moral damages, attorneys fees, and litigation expenses. On 29March 2005, Judge Paderanga issued a writ of replevin8ordering
Sheriff Reynaldo L. Salceda to take possession of the forest
products.
In a motion to quash the writ of replevin,9the defendants DENR
CENRO, and Gen. Dagudag prayed that the writ of replevin be set
aside: (1) Edmas bond was insufficient; (2) the forest products
were falsely declared as cassava meal and corn grains; (3) Edmawas not a party-in-interest; (4) the forest products were not
covered by any legal document; (5) nobody claimed the forest
products within a reasonable period of time; (6) the fores
products were already considered abandoned; (7) the forest
products were lawfully seized under the Revised Forestry Code
of the Philippines; (8) replevin was not proper; (9) courts could
not take cognizance of cases pending before the DENR; (10)
Edma failed to exhaust administrative remedies; and (11) the
DENR was the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry
laws. In a motion to dismiss ad cautelam10dated 12 April 2005
the defendants prayed that the complaint for replevin and
damages be dismissed: (1) the real defendant is the Republic of
the Philippines; (2) Edma failed to exhaust administrative
remedies; (3) the State cannot be sued without its consent; and
(4) Edma failed to allege that he is the owner or is entitled to thepossession of the forest products.
In an order11dated 14 April 2005, Judge Paderanga denied the
motion to quash the writ of replevin for lack of merit.
Gen. Dagudag filed with the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) an affidavit-complaint12dated 8 July 2005 charging Judge
Paderanga with gross ignorance of the law and conduc
unbecoming a judge. Gen. Dagudag stated that:
During the x x x hearing, [Judge Paderanga] showed
manifest partiality in favor of x x x Edma. DENRs
counsel was lambasted, cajoled and intimidated by[Judge Paderanga] using words such as "SHUT UP" and
"THATS BALONEY."
x x x x
Edma in the replevin case cannot seek to recover the
wood shipment from the DENR since he had not sought
administrative remedies available to him. The prudent
thing for [Judge Paderanga] to have done was to dismiss
the replevin suit outright.
x x x x
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt1 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
2/18
[Judge Paderangas] act[s] of taking cognizance of the xx x replevin suit, issuing the writ of replevin and the
subsequent denial of the motion to quash clearly
demonstrates [sic] ignorance of the law.
In its 1stIndorsement13dated 1 August 2005, the OCA directed
Judge Paderanga to comment on the affidavit-complaint. In his
comment14dated 6 September 2005, Judge Paderanga stated that
he exercised judicial discretion in issuing the writ of replevin and
that he could not delve into the issues raised by Gen. Dagudag
because they were related to a case pending before him.
In its Report15dated 10 July 2006, the OCA found that Judge
Paderanga (1) violated the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies; (2) violated the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction; and (3) used inappropriate language in court. The
OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter; that Judge Paderanga be held liable for
gross ignorance of the law and for violation of Section 6, Canon 6
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary;16and that he be fined P30,000.
In its Resolution17dated 16 August 2006, the Court re-docketed
the case as a regular administrative matter and required the
parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the casefor decision based on the pleadings already filed. Judge
Paderanga manifested his willingness to submit the case for
decision based on the pleadings already filed.18Since Gen.
Dagudag did not file any manifestation, the Court considered him
to have waived his compliance with the 16 August 2006
Resolution.19
The Court finds Judge Paderanga liable for gross ignorance of the
law and for conduct unbecoming a judge.
The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of
forestry laws. Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192 states that the
DENR shall be the primary agency responsible for the
conservation, management, development, and proper use of thecountrys natural resources.
Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended by
Executive Order No. 277, states that possessing forest products
without the required legal documents is punishable. Section 68-A
states that the DENR Secretary or his duly authorized
representatives may order the confiscation of any forest product
illegally cut, gathered, removed, possessed, or abandoned.
In the instant case, the forest products were possessed by NMC
Container Lines, Inc. without the required legal documents and
were abandoned by the unknown owner. Consequently, the
DENR seized the forest products.
Judge Paderanga should have dismissed the replevin suit outright
for three reasons. First, under the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, courts cannot take cognizance of cases
pending before administrative agencies. In Factoran, Jr. v. Court of
Appeals,20the Court held that:
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is basic.Courts, for reasons of law, comity
and convenience, should not entertain suits unlessthe available administrative remedies have first
been resorted to and the proper authorities have
been given an appropriate opportunity to act and
correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the
administrative forum. (Emphasis ours)
In Dy v. Court of Appeals,21the Court held that a party must
exhaust all administrative remedies before he can resort to the
courts. In Paat v. Court of Appeals,22the Court held that:
This Court in a long line of cases has consistently held
that before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that
he should have availed of all the means ofadministrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a
remedy within the administrative machinery canstill be resorted toby giving the administrative officerconcerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that
comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy
should be exhausted first before courts judicial
power can be sought.The premature invocation o
courts intervention is fatal to ones cause of actionAccordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppe
the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause o
action. (Emphasis ours)
In the instant case, Edma did not resort to, or avail
of, anyadministrative remedy. He went straight to court and fileda complaint for replevin and damages. Section 8 of Presidentia
Decree No. 705, as amended, states that (1) all actions and
decisions of the Bureau of Forest Development Director are
subject to review by the DENR Secretary; (2) the decisions of the
DENR Secretary are appealable to the President; and (3) courts
cannot review the decisions of the DENR Secretary excep
through a special civil action for certiorarior prohibition
In Dy,23the Court held that all actions seeking to recover fores
products in the custody of the DENR shall be directed to that
agency not the courts. In Paat,24the Court held that:
Dismissal of the replevin suit for lack of cause of
action in view of the private respondents failure to
exhaust administrative remedies should have beenthe proper course of action by the lower court
instead of assuming jurisdiction over the case andconsequently issuing the writ[o
replevin]. Exhaustion of the remedies in the
administrative forum, being a condition preceden
prior to ones recourse to the courts and more
importantly, being an element of private respondentsright of action, is too significant to be waylaid by the
lower court.
x x x x
Moreover, the suit for replevin is never intended as a
procedural tool to question the orders ofconfiscation and forfeiture issued by the DENRin
pursuance to the authority given under P.D. 705, as
amended. Section 8 of the said law is explici
thatactions taken by the
Director of the Bureau of ForestDevelopmentconcerning the enforcement of the
provisions of the said law are subject to review by the
Secretary of DENR and that courts may not review
the decisions of the Secretary except through a
special civil action for certiorari or prohibition(Emphasis ours)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt13 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
3/18
Second, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot
take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies
of special competence. The DENR is the agency responsible for
the enforcement of forestry laws. The complaint for replevin
itself stated that members of DENRs Task Force Sagip
Kalikasantook over the forest products and brought them to
the DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources Office.
This should have alerted Judge Paderanga that the DENR had
custody of the forest products, that administrative proceedings
may have been commenced, and that the replevin suit had to be
dismissed outright. In Tabao v. Judge Lilagan25 a case with asimilar set of facts as the instant case the Court held that:
The complaint for replevin itself states that the
shipment x x x [was] seized by the NBI for verification
of supporting documents. It also states that the NBI
turned over the seized items to the DENR "for official
disposition and appropriate action." x x x To our
mind, these allegations[should] have been sufficient
to alert respondent judge that the DENR has custody
of the seized items and that administrative
proceedings may have already been commencedconcerning the shipment. Under the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, courts cannot take cognizance
of cases pending before administrative agencies of
special competence. x x x The prudent thing forrespondent judge to have done was to dismiss the
replevin suit outright. (Emphasis ours)
In Paat,26the Court held that:
[T]he enforcement of forestry laws, rules and
regulations and the protection, development and
management of forest lands fall within the primary and
special responsibilities of the Department of
Environment and
Natural Resources. By the very nature of its
function, the DENR should be given a free handunperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a
controversy which is well within its jurisdiction.The assumption by the trial court, therefore, of the
replevin suit filed by private respondents
constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the
domain of the administrative agencys prerogative.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does notwarrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority
to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over whichis initially lodged with an administrative body of
special competence. (Emphasis ours)
Third, the forest products are already in custodia legisand thus
cannot be the subject of replevin. There was a violation of theRevised Forestry Code and the DENR seized the forest products
in accordance with law. In Calub v. Court of Appeals,27the Court
held that properties lawfully seized by the DENR cannot be the
subject of replevin:
Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry
Code and the seizure was in accordance with law, in
our view the[properties seized] were validlydeemed in custodia legis. [They] could not be
subject to an action for replevin . For it is property
lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered
in the custody of the law, and not otherwise. (Emphasis
ours)
Judge Paderangas acts of taking cognizance of the replevin suitand of issuing the writ of replevin constitute gross ignorance o
the law. In Tabao,28the Court held that:
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts
cannot take cognizance of cases pending before
administrative of special competence. x x x [T]he
plaintiff in the replevin suit who[sought] to recover
the shipment from the DENR had not exhausted theadministrative remedies available to him. The
prudent thing for respondent judge to have donewas to dismiss the replevin suit outright.
Under Section 78-A of the Revised Forestry Code, the
DENR secretary or his authorized representatives may
order the confiscation of forest products illegally cut
gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned.
x x x x
Respondent judges act of taking cognizance of thexx x replevin suit clearly demonstrates ignorance o
the law. x x x [J]udges are expected to keep abreast ofall laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Judges are duty
bound to have more than just a cursory acquaintancewith laws and jurisprudence. Failure to follow basic
legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of the
law from which no one may be excused, not even ajudge. (Emphasis ours)
Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary states that competence is a prerequisite to the due
performance of judicial office. Section 3 of Canon 6 states that
judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their
knowledge necessary for the proper performance of judicia
duties. Judges should keep themselves abreast with lega
developments and show acquaintance with laws.29
The rule that courts cannot prematurely take cognizance of cases
pending before administrative agencies is basic. There was no
reason for Judge Paderanga to make an exception to this rule. The
forest products were in the custody of the DENR and Edma had
not availed of any administrative remedy. Judge Paderanga
should have dismissed the replevin suit outright. In Espaol v
Toledo-Mupas,30the Court held that:
Being among the judicial front-liners who have direc
contact with the litigants, a wanton display of utter lack
of familiarity with the rules by the judge inevitably
erodes the confidence of the public in the competence of
our courts to render justice. It subjects the judiciary to
embarrassment. Worse, it could raise the specter of
corruption.
When the gross inefficiency springs from a failure to
consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law, or a
principle in the discharge of his or her duties, a judge is
either too incompetent and undeserving of the exalted
position and title he or she holds, or the oversight or
omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in
grave abuse of judicial authority.
The OCA found Judge Paderanga liable for using inappropriate
language in court: "We x x x find respondents intemperate use o
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt25 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
4/18
"Shut up!" and "Baloney!" well nigh inappropriate in court
proceedings. The utterances are uncalled for."31
Indeed, the 14 and 22 April 2005 transcripts of stenographic
notes show that Judge Paderanga was impatient, discourteous,
and undignified in court:
Atty. Luego: Your Honor, we want to have this motion
because that is...
Judge Paderanga: I am asking you why did you not make
any rejoinder[?]
x x x x
Atty. Luego: I apologize, Your Honor. We are ready to...
Judge Paderanga: Ready to what? Proceed.
Atty. Luego: Yes, Your Honor. We filed this motion to
quash replevin, Your Honor, on the grounds, first and
foremost, it is our contention, Your Honor, with all due
respect of [sic] this Honorable Court, that the writ of
replevin dated March 29, 2005 was improper, YourHonor, for the reasons that the lumber, subject matter
of this case, were apprehended in accordance with...
Judge Paderanga: Where is your proof that it was
apprehended? Where is your proof? Is that
apprehension proven by a seizure receipt? Where is
your seizure receipt?
Atty. Luego: Under the rules...
Judge Paderanga: Where is your seizure receipt? You
read your rules. What does [sic] the rules say? Where in
your rules does it say that it does not need any seizurereceipt? You look at your rules. You point out the rules.
You take out your rules and then you point out. Do you
have the rules?
x x x x
Atty. Luego: Your Honor, there was no seizure receipt,
but during the apprehension, Your Honor, there was no
claimant.
Judge Paderanga: Answer me. Is there a seizure receipt?
Atty. Luego: But during the apprehension, Your Honor,no owner has [sic] appeared.
x x x x
Atty. Luego: According to [the] rules, Your Honor, if
there is no...
Judge Paderanga: Whom are you seizing it from? To
[sic] whom are you taking it from?
Atty. Luego: From the shipping company, Your Honor.
x x x x
Atty. Luego: Your Honor please, the shipping company
denied the ownership of that lumber.
x x x x
Atty. Luego: But the shipping company, Your Honor,...
Judge Paderanga: Shut up. Thats baloney. You areseizing it from nobody. Then how can you seize it from
the shipping company. Are you not? You are a lawyer
Who is in possession of the property? The shipping
company. Why did you not issue [a] seizure receipt to
the shipping company?
Atty. Luego: But the... May I continue, Your Honor?
x x x x
Judge Paderanga: Stop talking about the shipping
company. Still you did not issue a seizure receipt here
Well, Im telling you you should have issued [a] seizure
receipt to the shipping company.
x x x x
Judge Paderanga: You are a lawyer. You should know
how to write pleadings. You write the pleadings the
way it should be, not the way you think it should be.
Atty. Luego: Im sorry, Your Honor.
Judge Paderanga: You are an officer of the court. You
should be careful with your language. You say that
am wrong. Its you who are[sic] wrong because you
do not read the law.
x x x x
Judge Paderanga: Then you read the law. How dare yousay that the Court is wrong.
x x x x
Judge Paderanga: Are you not representing [the DENR]?
Atty. Luego: Yes, in this case, Your Honor.
Judge Paderanga: Then you are representing them. They
are your clients. What kind of a lawyer are you?32
x x x x
Atty. Tiamson: Specifically it was stated in the
[Factoran] versus Court of Appeals [case] that the Court
should not interfere, Your Honor.
Judge Paderanga: No.
x x x x
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt31 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
5/18
Judge Paderanga: The problem with you people is
you do not use your heads.
Atty. Tiamson: We use our heads, your Honor.
x x x x
Atty. Tiamson: Your Honor, we would like to put on
record that we use our heads, your Honor.33(Emphasis
ours)
Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary states that judges shall be patient, dignified,
and courteous in relation to lawyers. Rule 3.04, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges should be patient and
courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced. They should
avoid the attitude that the litigants are made for the courts,
instead of the courts for the litigants.
Judicial decorum requires judges to be temperate in their
language at all times. They must refrain from inflammatory,
excessively rhetoric, or vile language.34They should (1) be
dignified in demeanor and refined in speech; (2) exhibit that
temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint; and (3) beconsiderate, courteous, and civil to all persons who come to their
court.35InJuan de la Cruz v. Carretas,36the Court held that:
A judge who is inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to
lawyers x x x who appear in his sala commits an
impropriety and fails in his duty to reaffirm the peoplesfaith in the judiciary. He also violates Section 6, Canon 6
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary.
x x x x
It is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer x x
x. The act betrays lack of patience, prudence andrestraint. Thus, a judge must at all times be temperate
in his language. He must choose his words x x x with
utmost care and sufficient control. The wise and just
man is esteemed for his discernment. Pleasing speech
increases his persuasiveness.
Equanimity and judiciousness should be the constant
marks of a dispenser of justice. A judge should always
keep his passion guarded. He can never allow it to run
loose and overcome his reason. He descends to the level
of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he
utters harsh words x x x. As a result, he degrades the
judicial office and erodes public confidence in the
judiciary.
Judge Paderangas refusal to consider the motion to quash thewrit of replevin, repeated interruption of the lawyers, and
utterance of "shut up," "thats baloney," "how dare you say thatthe court is wrong," "what kind of a lawyer are you?," and "the
problem with you people is you do not use your heads" are
undignified and very unbecoming a judge. In Office of the Court
Administrator v. Paderanga,37the Court already reprimanded
Judge Paderanga for repeatedly saying "shut up," being arrogant,
and declaring that he had "absolute power" in court. He has not
changed.
Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross
ignorance of the law as a serious offense. It is punishable by (1)
dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, and
disqualification from reinstatement to any public office; (2)
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
more than three months but not exceeding six months; or (3) a
fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.38Section
10 of Rule 140 classifies conduct unbecoming a judge as a light
offense. It is punishable by (1) a fine of not less than P1,000 but
not exceeding P10,000; (2) censure; (3) reprimand; or (4)
admonition with warning.39
The Court notes that this is Judge Paderangas third offense
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Paderanga ,40the Court held
him liable for grave abuse of authority and simple misconduct for
unceremoniously citing a lawyer in contempt while declaring
himself as having "absolute power" and for repeatedly telling a
lawyer to "shut up." InBeltran, Jr. v. Paderanga,41the Court held
him liable for undue delay in rendering an order for the delay of
nine months in resolving an amended formal offer of exhibits. In
both cases, the Court sternly warned Judge Paderanga that the
commission of another offense shall be dealt with more severely
The instant case and the two cases decided against him
demonstrate Judge Paderangas arrogance, incorrigibility, andunfitness to become a judge.
Judge Paderanga has two other administrative cases pending
against him one42for gross ignorance of the law, knowinglyrendering an unjust judgment, and grave abuse of authority, and
the other43for gross misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and
gross ignorance of the law.
The Court will not hesitate to impose the ultimate penalty on
those who have fallen short of their accountabilities. It will not
tolerate any conduct that violates the norms of public
accountability and diminishes the faith of the people in the
judicial system.44
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Maximo G.W. PaderangaRegional Trial Court, Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro
City, GUILTY ofGROSS IGNORANCE OF THELAWand UNBECOMING CONDUCT. Accordingly, the
CourtDISMISSEShim from the service, with forfeiture of al
retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with
prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office
including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jun2008/am_rtj-06-2017_2008.html#fnt33 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
6/18
G.R. No. 167569 September 4, 2009
CARLOS T. GO, SR.,Petitioner,
vs.
LUIS T. RAMOS,Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 167570
JIMMY T. GO,Petitioner,vs.
LUIS T. RAMOS,Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 171946
HON. ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., in his capacity as the
Commissioner of the BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION; ATTY.
FAISAL HUSSIN and ANSARI M. MACAAYAN, in their capacity
as Intelligence Officers of the BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION,Petitioners,
vs.
JIMMY T. GO a.k.a. JAIME T. GAISANO,Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING,J.:
Before us are three petitions. G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570 are
petitions for review on certiorari to set aside the October 25,2004 Decision1and February 16, 2005 Resolution2of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85143 that affirmed the
Decision3dated January 6, 2004 and Order4dated May 3, 2004 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 167 in SCA
No. 2218 upholding the preparation and filing of deportation
charges against Jimmy T. Go, the corresponding Charge
Sheet5dated July 3, 2001, and the deportation proceedings
thereunder conducted.
On the other hand, G.R. No. 171946, also a petition for review on
certiorari, seeks to set aside the December 8, 2005 Decision 6and
March 13, 2006 Resolution7of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP
No. 88277.
Considering that the three cases arose from the same factual
milieu, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. Nos. 167570 and
167569 with G.R. No. 171946 per Resolution8dated February 26,
2007.
These petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit9for
deportation initiated by Luis T. Ramos before the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of Immigration)
against Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and
undesirable alien. Luis alleged that while Jimmy represents
himself as a Filipino citizen, Jimmys personal circumstances andother records indicate that he is not so. To prove his contention,
Luis presented the birth certificate of Jimmy, issued by the Office
of the Civil Registrar of Iloilo City, which indicated Jimmyscitizenship as "FChinese." Luis argued that although it appears
from Jimmys birth certificate that his parents, Carlos and RosarioTan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be tampered, because
only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all
the other entries were typewritten. He also averred that in
September 1989 or thereabout, Jimmy, through stealth,
machination and scheming managed to cover up his true
citizenship, and with the use of falsified documents and
untruthful declarations, was able to procure a Philippine
passport from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Jimmy refuted the allegations in his counter-affidavit,10averring
that the complaint for deportation initiated by Luis was merely a
harassment case designed to oust him of his rightful share in
their business dealings. Jimmy maintained that there is no truth
to the allegation that he is an alien, and insisted that he is a
natural-born Filipino. Jimmy alleged that his father Carlos, who
was the son of a Chinese father and Filipina mother, elected
Philippine citizenship in accordance with Article IV, Section 1
paragraph 411of the 1935 Constitution and Commonwealth Act
No. 62512(Com. Act No. 625), as evidenced by his having taken
the Oath of Allegiance on July 11, 1950 and having executed an
Affidavit of Election of Philippine citizenship on July 12, 1950
Although the said oath and affidavit were registered only on
September 11, 1956, the reason behind such late registration was
sufficiently explained in an affidavit. Jimmy added that he had
even voted in the 1952 and 1955 elections.13He denied that his
father arrived in the Philippines as an undocumented alien
alleging that his father has no record of arrival in this country as
alleged in the complaint-affidavit precisely because his father
was born and raised in the Philippines, and in fact, speaks fluent
Ilonggo and Tagalog.14
With regard to the erroneous entry in his birth certificate that he
is "FChinese," he maintained that such was not of his own doing
but may be attributed to the employees of the Local Civil
Registrars Office who might have relied on his Chinese-soundingsurname when making the said entry. He asserted that the said
office has control over his birth certificate; thus, if his fatherscitizenship appears to be handwritten, it may have been changed
when the employees of that office realized that his father has
already taken his oath as a Filipino.15As regards the entry in his
siblings certificates of birth, particularly Juliet Go and Carlos Go
Jr., that their father is Chinese, Jimmy averred that the entry was
erroneous because it was made without prior consultation with
his father.16
In a Resolution17dated February 14, 2001, Associate
Commissioner Linda L. Malenab-Hornilla dismissed the
complaint for deportation against Jimmy. Associate
Commissioner Hornilla affirmed the findings of the NationaBureau of Investigation tasked to investigate the case that
Jimmys father elected Filipino citizenship in accordance with the
provisions of the 1935 Philippine Constitution. By operation o
law, therefore, the citizenship of Carlos was transmitted to
Jimmy, making him a Filipino as well.
On March 8, 2001,18the Board of Commissioners (Board)
reversed said dismissal, holding that Carlos election of Philippine
citizenship was made out of time. Finding Jimmys claim toPhilippine citizenship in serious doubt by reason of his fathersquestionable election thereof, the Board directed the preparation
and filing of the appropriate deportation charges against Jimmy.
On July 3, 2001, the corresponding Charge Sheet was filed against
Jimmy, charging him of violating Section 37(a)(9)19in relation to
Section 45(c)20of Com. Act No. 613, otherwise known as The
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940,21as amended, committed as
follows:
x x x x
1. That Respondent was born on October 25, 1952 in
Iloilo City, as evidenced by a copy of his birth certificate
wherein his citizenship was recorded as "Chinese";
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt1 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
7/18
2. That Respondent through some stealth machinations
was able to subsequently cover up his true and actual
citizenship as Chinese and illegally acquired a
Philippine Passport under the name JAIME T. GAISANO,
with the use of falsified documents and untruthful
declarations, in violation of the above-cited provisions
of the Immigration Act[;]
3. That [R]espondent being an alien, has formally and
officially represent[ed] and introduce[d] himself as a
citizen of the Philippines, for fraudulent purposes and inorder to evade any requirements of the immigration
laws, also in violation of said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.22
On November 9, 2001, Carlos and Jimmy filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition23with application for injunctive reliefs
before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 167, docketed as SCA No.
2218, seeking to annul and set aside the March 8, 2001
Resolution of the Board of Commissioners, the Charge Sheet, and
the proceedings had therein. In essence, they challenged the
jurisdiction of the Board to continue with the deportation
proceedings.
In the interim, the Board issued a Decision24dated April 17, 2002,
in BSI-D.C. No. ADD-01-117, ordering the apprehension and
deportation of Jimmy. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Board of
Commissioners hereby Orders the apprehension of respondent
JIMMY T. GO @ JAIME T. GAISANO and that he be then deported
to CHINA of which he is a citizen, without prejudice, however, to
the continuation of any and all criminal and other proceedings
that are pending in court or before the prosecution arm of the
Philippine Government, if any. And that upon expulsion, he is
thereby ordered barred from entry into the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.25
In view of the said Decision, Carlos and Jimmy filed on June 13,
2002 a supplemental petition for certiorari and
prohibition26before the trial court and reiterated their
application for injunctive reliefs. The trial court issued a writ of
preliminary prohibitory injunction pending litigation on the main
issue, enjoining the Bureau from enforcing the April 17, 2002
Decision.27Later, however, the trial court dissolved the writ in a
Decision28dated January 6, 2004 as a consequence of the
dismissal of the petition.
Carlos and Jimmy moved for reconsideration. But their motionwas likewise denied.29
Following the dismissal of the petition in SCA No. 2218, the Board
issued a warrant of deportation30which led to the apprehension
of Jimmy. Jimmy commenced a petition for habeas corpus, but the
same was eventually dismissed by reason of his provisional
release on bail.31
Carlos and Jimmy then questioned the Decision in SCA No. 2218
as well as the Resolution denying their motion for
reconsideration by way of a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85143. They
imputed grave abuse of discretion by the trial court for passing
upon their citizenship, claiming that what they asked for in their
petition was merely the nullification of the March 8, 2001
Resolution and the charge sheet.
The appellate tribunal dismissed the petition.32It did not find
merit in their argument that the issue of citizenship should
proceed only before the proper court in an independent action
and that neither the Bureau nor the Board has jurisdiction over
individuals who were born in the Philippines and have exercised
the rights of Filipino citizens. The appellate tribunal also rejectedtheir claim that they enjoy the presumption of being Filipino
citizens.
The Court of Appeals held that the Board has the exclusive
authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged
alien, and in the process, determine their citizenship.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the principle
of jus soli was never extended to the Philippines; hence, could not
be made a ground to ones claim of Philippine citizenship. Likethe trial court, the appellate tribunal found that Carlos failed to
elect Philippine citizenship within the reasonable period of three
years upon reaching the age of majority. Furthermore, it held that
the belated submission to the local civil registry of the affidavit ofelection and oath of allegiance in September 1956 was defective
because the affidavit of election was executed after the oath of
allegiance, and the delay of several years before their filing with
the proper office was not satisfactorily explained.
The course of action taken by the trial court was also approved
by the appellate tribunal. The Court of Appeals stated that the
trial court necessarily had to rule on the substantial and lega
bases warranting the deportation proceeding in order todetermine whether the Board acted without or in excess o
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Moreover, the
appellate court found that due process was properly observed in
the proceedings before the Board, contrary to the claim of Jimmy.
Unfazed with the said ruling, they moved for reconsideration
Their motion having been denied,33Carlos and Jimmy each filed a
petition for review on certiorari before this Court, respectively
docketed as G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570.
Meanwhile, in view of the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP. No. 85143
Bureau of Immigration Commissioner Alipio F. Fernandez, Jr
issued Warrant of Deportation No. AFF-04-00334dated
November 16, 2004 to carry out the April 17, 2002 Decision in
BSI-D.C. No. ADD-01-117. This resulted in the apprehension and
detention of Jimmy at the Bureau of Immigration Bicutan
Detention Center, pending his deportation to China.35
On account of his detention, Jimmy once again filed a petition forhabeas corpus36before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 167
docketed as SP. Proc. No. 11507 assailing his apprehension and
detention despite the pendency of his appeal and his release on
recognizance.
In an Order37dated December 6, 2004, the trial court dismissed
the said petition ruling that the remedy of habeas corpus canno
be availed of to obtain an order of release once a deportation
order has already been issued by the Bureau. Jimmy moved for
reconsideration of the Order, but this was also denied by the tria
court in an Order38dated December 28, 2004.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt22 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
8/18
Jimmy assailed the Orders of the trial court in a petition for
certiorari and prohibition before the appellate court, docketed as
CA-G.R. No. 88277. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and
enjoined the deportation of Jimmy until the issue of his
citizenship is settled with finality by the court. The Court of
Appeals held as follows:
x x x x
the issuance of a warrant to arrest and deport the petitioner
without any proof whatsoever of his violation of the bailconditions [that he was previously granted] is arbitrary,
inequitable and unjust, for the policies governing the grant of his
bail should likewise apply in the cancellation of the said bail.
Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the
nature of a criminal action, yet considering that it is such a harsh
and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the
freedom and liberty of a person who all his life has always lived
in the Philippines, where he has established his family and
business interests, one who appears to be not completely devoid
of any claim to Filipino citizenship, being the son of a Filipina,
whose father is alleged to also have elected to be a Filipino, the
constitutional right of such person to due process cannot be
peremptorily dismissed or ignored altogether, and indeed should
not be denied. If it later turns out that the petitioner is a Filipinoafter all, then the overly eager Immigration authorities would
have expelled and relegated to statelessness one who might in
fact be a Filipino by blood.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition with
reference to the Warrant of Deportation issued by the BID is
hereby GRANTED. The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation,through Commissioner Alipio F. Fernandez, Jr., Atty. Faizal Hussin
and Ansari Maca Ayan, and any of their deputized agents, are
ENJOINED from deporting petitioner Jimmy T. Go, a.k.a. Jaime T.
Gaisano, until the issue of petitioners citizenship is finally settled
by the courts of justice.
SO ORDERED.39
Their motion for reconsideration40having been denied on March
13, 2006, Hon. Alipio Fernandez, in his capacity as the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, and Atty. Faisal
Hussin and Ansari M. Macaayan, in their capacity as Intelligence
Officers of the Bureau of Immigration, are before this Court as
petitioners in G.R. No. 171946.
The parties have raised the following grounds for their respective
petitions:
G.R. No. 167569
I.
THE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION (B.I.D.) ARE NULL AND VOID
FOR ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEAD AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IN
THE PERSON OF PETITIONER CARLOS GO, SR.
II.
GIVEN THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE HEREIN
PETITIONER CARLOS GO SR.S FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP, A FULLBLOWN TRIAL UNDER THE MORE RIGID RULES OF EVIDENCE
PRESCRIBED IN COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE HIS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP AND
NOT THROUGH MERE "SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS" SUCH AS THE
ONE HAD BEFORE THE B.I.D. AS WELL AS IN THE COURT A QUO.
III.
A FILIPINO CITIZEN IS NOT REQUIRED TO ELECT PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP.
IV.
ASSUMING CARLOS GO, SR. STILL NEEDS TO ELECT PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP, HE HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL THE
REQUIREMENTS OF COM. ACT NO. 625.
V.
PETITIONER CARLOS GO, SR. ENJOYS THE "PRESUMPTION OFCITIZENSHIP."
VI.
RESPONDENTS "CAUSE OF ACTION" HAD LONG PRESCRIBED.41
G.R. No. 167570
I.
THE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION (B.I.D.) ARE NULL AND VOID
FOR ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEAD AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IN
THE PERSON OF PETITIONERS FATHER, CARLOS GO, SR.
II.
THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE B.I.D. ARE
NULL AND VOID FOR ITS FAILURE TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS.
III.
THE B.I.D.S CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONER
JIMMY T. GO HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED.
IV.
GIVEN THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE HEREIN
PETITIONERS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP, A FULL BLOWN TRIALUNDER THE MORE RIGID RULES OF EVIDENCE PRESCRIBED IN
COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED TO
DETERMINE HIS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP AND NOT THROUGH
MERE "SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS" SUCH AS THE ONE HAD
BEFORE THE B.I.D.42
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt39 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
9/18
G.R. No. 171946
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN
ENJOINING RESPONDENTS DEPORTATION.43
Succinctly stated, the issues for our resolution are: (a) whether
the cause of action of the Bureau against Carlos and Jimmy had
prescribed; (b) whether the deportation proceedings are null and
void for failure to implead Carlos as an indispensable party
therein; (c) whether the evidence adduced by Carlos and Jimmy
to prove their claim to Philippine citizenship is substantial andsufficient to oust the Board of its jurisdiction from continuing
with the deportation proceedings in order to give way to a formal
judicial action to pass upon the issue of alienage; (d) whether due
process was properly observed in the proceedings before the
Board; and (e) whether the petition for habeas corpus should be
dismissed.
The arguments raised by Carlos and Jimmy in their respective
petitions are merely a rehash of the arguments they adduced
before the appellate tribunal and the trial court. Once again, they
raised the same argument of prescription. As to Carlos, it is his
position that being recognized by the government to have
acquired Philippine citizenship, evidenced by the Certificate of
Election issued to him on September 11, 1956, his citizenshipcould no longer be questioned at this late date. As for Jimmy, he
contends that the Boards cause of action to deport him hasprescribed for the simple reason that his arrest was not made
within five (5) years from the time the cause of action arose,
which according to him commenced in 1989 when he was alleged
to have illegally acquired a Philippine passport.
In any event, they argue that the deportation proceeding should
be nullified altogether for failure to implead Carlos as anindispensable party therein. Jimmy posits that the deportation
case against him was made to depend upon the citizenship of his
father, Carlos, in that the Board found justification to order his
deportation by declaring that his father is a Chinese citizen even
though the latter was never made a party in the deportationproceedings. They argue that the Board could not simply strip
Carlos of his citizenship just so they could question the
citizenship of Jimmy. To do so without affording Carlos the
opportunity to adduce evidence to prove his claim to Philippine
citizenship would be the height of injustice. For failing to accord
him the requisite due process, the whole proceeding should
perforce be stuck down.
While they concede that the Board has jurisdiction to hear cases
against an alleged alien, they insist that judicial intervention may
be resorted to when the claim to citizenship is so substantial that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct,
like in this case. Their claim to Philippine citizenship, they said, is
clearly shown by the fact that they were born, had been raisedand had lived in this country all their lives; they speak fluent
Tagalog and Ilonggo; they engage in businesses reserved solely
for Filipinos; they exercise their right to suffrage; they enjoy the
rights and privileges accorded only to citizens; and they have no
record of any Alien Certificate of Registration. More importantly,
they contend that they were validly issued Philippine passports.
They further posit that the judicial intervention required is not
merely a judicial review of the proceedings below, but a full-
blown, adversarial, trial-type proceedings where the rules of
evidence are strictly observed.
Considering that his citizenship affects that of his son, Carlos
opted to present controverting arguments to sustain his claim to
Philippine citizenship, notwithstanding the fact that according to
him, he was never impleaded in the deportation proceedings.
Carlos takes exception to the ruling of the appellate court that the
doctrine of jus soli failed to accord him Philippine citizenship for
the reason that the same was never extended to the Philippines
He insists that if his Philippine citizenship is not recognized by
said doctrine, it is nonetheless recognized by the laws enforced
prior to the 1935 Constitution, particularly the Philippine Bill o
190244and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916
(Jones Law of 1916).45
According to Carlos, the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law
of 1916 deemed all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands as wel
as their children born after the passage of said laws to be citizens
of the Philippines. Because his father, Go Yin An, was a resident of
the Philippines at the time of the passage of the Jones Law of
1916, he (Carlos) undoubtedly acquired his fathers citizenship
Article IV, first paragraph, of the 1935 Constitution therefore
applies to him. Said constitutional provision reads:
ARTICLE IV. Citizenship
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time o
the adoption of this Constitution.
x x x x
Even assuming that his father remained as a Chinese, Carlos also
claims that he followed the citizenship of his Filipina mother
being an illegitimate son, and that he even validly elected
Philippine citizenship when he complied with all the
requirements of Com. Act No. 625. He submits that what is being
disputed is not whether he complied with Com. Act No. 625, but
rather, the timeliness of his compliance. He stresses that the 3-
year compliance period following the interpretation given byCuenco v. Secretary of Justice46to Article IV, Section 1(4) of the
1935 Constitution and Com. Act No. 625 when election must be
made, is not an inflexible rule. He reasoned that the same
decision held that such period may be extended under certain
circumstances, as when the person concerned has always
considered himself a Filipino, like in his case.47
We deny the appeal of Carlos and Jimmy for lack of merit.
Carlos and Jimmys claim that the cause of action of the Bureau
has prescribed is untenable. Cases involving issues on citizenship
are sui generis. Once the citizenship of an individual is put into
question, it necessarily has to be threshed out and decided upon
In the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections,48we said thadecisions declaring the acquisition or denial of citizenship cannot
govern a persons future status with finality. This is because a
person may subsequently reacquire, or for that matter, lose his
citizenship under any of the modes recognized by law for the
purpose.49Indeed, if the issue of ones citizenship, after it hasbeen passed upon by the courts, leaves it still open to future
adjudication, then there is more reason why the government
should not be precluded from questioning ones claim to
Philippine citizenship, especially so when the same has never
been threshed out by any tribunal.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_167569_2009.html#fnt43 -
8/13/2019 1 Full Text Cases
10/18
Jimmys invocation of prescription also does not persuade us.Section 37 (b) of Com. Act No. 613 states:
Section 37.
x x x x
(b) Deportation may be effected under clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12
of this section at any time after entry, but shall not be effected
under any other clause unless the arrest in the deportation
proceedings is made within five years after the cause of
deportation arises.
x x x x
As shown in the Charge Sheet, Jimmy was charged for violation of
Section 37(a)(9),50in relation to Section 45(e)51of Com. Act No.
613. From the foregoing provision, his deportation may be
effected only if his arrest is made within 5 years from the time
the cause for deportation arose. The court a quo is correct when
it ruled that the 5-year period should be counted only from July
18, 2000, the time when Luis filed his complaint for deportation.
It is the legal possibility of bringing the action which determines
the starting point for the computation of the period ofprescription.52Additionally, Section 2 of Act No. 3326,53as
amended, entitled "An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for
Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances
and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin to Run," provides:
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not
known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution
of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
x x x x
The counting could not logically start in 1989 when his passport
was issued because the government was unaware that he was nota Filipino citizen. Had the government been aware at such time
that he was not a Filipino citizen or there were certain anomalies
attending his application for such passport, it would have denied
his application.
As to the issue of whether Carlos is an indispensable party, we
reiterate that an indispensable party is a party in interest without
whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who
shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant.54To be
indispensable, a person must first be a real party in interest, that
is, one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment of
the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.55Carlos
clearly is not an indispensable party as he does not stand to be
benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit. What is sought isthe deportation of Jimmy on the ground that he is an alien. Hence,
the principal issue that will be decided on is the propriety of his
deportation. To recall, Jimmy claims that he is a Filipino under
Section 1(3),56Article IV of the 1935 Constitution because Carlos,
his father, is allegedly a citizen.57Since his citizenship hinges on
that of his fathers, it becomes necessary to pass upon thecitizenship of the latter. However, whatever will be the findings
as to Carlos citizenship will in no way prejudice him.
Citizenship proceedings, as aforestated, are a class of its own, in
that, unlike other cases, res judicata does not obtain as a matter
of course. In a long line of decisions, this Court said that every
time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a
judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court
or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship
is generally not considered as res judicata; hence, it has to be
threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand.58Res
judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship only if the
following concur:
1. a persons citizenship must be raised as a materiaissue in a controversy where said person is a party;
2. the Solicitor General or his authorized representative
took active part in the resolution thereof; and
3. the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.59
In the event that the citizenship of Carlos will be questioned, or
his deportation sought, the same has to be ascertained once again
as the decision which will be rendered hereinafter shall have no
preclusive effect upon his citizenship. As neither injury nor
benefit will redound upon Carlos, he cannot be said to be an
indispensable party in this case.
There can be no question that the Board has the authority to hearand determine the deportation case against a deportee and in the
process determine also the question of citizenship raised by
him.60However, this Court, following American jurisprudence
laid down the exception to the primary jurisdiction enjoyed by
the deportation board in the case of Chua Hiong v. Deportation
Board61wherein we stressed that judicial determination is
permitted in cases when the courts themselves believe that there
is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so
substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that
the claim is correct.62Moreover, when the evidence submitted by
a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate
review should also be recognized and the courts shall promptly
enjoin the deportation proceedings.63
While we are mindful that resort to the courts may be had, the
same should be allowed only in the sound discretion of a
competent court in proper proceedings.64After all, the Boardsjurisdiction is not divested by the mere claim of
citizenship.65Moreover, a deportee who claims to be a citizen and
not therefore subject to deportation has the right to have his
citizenship reviewed by the courts, after the deportation
proceedings.66The decision of the Board on the question is, o
course, not final but subject to review by the courts.671avvphi1
After a careful evaluation of the evidence, the appellate court was
not convinced that the same was sufficient to oust the Board of its
jurisdiction to continue with the deportation proceedings
considering that what were presented particularly the birth
certificates of Jimmy, as well as those of his siblings, Juliet Go andCarlos Go, Jr. indicate that they are Chinese citizens. Furthermore
like the Board, it found the election of Carlos of Philippine
citizenship, which was offered as additional proof of his claim
irregular as it was not made on time.
We find no cogent reason to overturn the above findings of the
appellate tribunal. The question of whether substantial evidence
had been presented to allow immediate recourse to the regular
courts is a question of fact which is beyond this Courts power o
review for it is not a trier of facts .68None of the exceptions69