Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27602)
Facts:
Vicente Caoile, Santos Caoile and Felipe Caoile, petitioners-appellees, vs. Martiniano P. Vivo, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration, the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, and Felix Endencia, as Deportation Officer of the Bureau of Immigration (G.R. No. L-27602); Jose Caoile, petitioner-appellee, vs. Martiniano P. Vivo, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration, the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, and Felix Endencia, as Deportation Officer (G.R. No. L-27603); and Commissioner of Immigration and Captain Delfin Macalinao, CIS, PC, petitioners, vs. Juan Garcia, respondent (G.R. No. L-28082), October 15, 1983, the Supreme Court En Banc, Plana, J., writing for the Court.On May 30, 1961 the Philippine consul at Hong Kong, Samson T. Sabalones, issued certificates of registration and identity for five persons (Teban, Jose, Felipe, Vicente and Santos Caoile) purportedly to enable them to travel to the Philippines as children of a Philippine citizen, Antonio Caoile. The five arrived in June 1961 and sought admission as Filipino citizens. A Board of Special Inquiry, after hearings, concluded in decisions dated June 23 and 26, 1961 that they were Filipino citizens as children of Antonio Caoile; those decisions were signed by two members and thus deemed final unless reversed by the Board of Commissioners within one year (Exhs. A–B).
Individual members of the Board of Commissioners reacted differently: Commissioner Galang wrote “Exclude” while Associate Commissioners De la Rosa and Talabis wrote “Noted” on the board decisions; no collective meeting was held. An alien registration supervisor later issued identification certificates treating the five as admitted Filipinos. On January 24, 1962 the Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum Order No. 9 setting aside purported Board of Commissioners’ decisions rendered without collective deliberation and directing a review of board decisions admitting aliens as citizens. Acting on this, immigration officers performed reviews (one ex parte) and a new Board of Commissioners (Vivo, Ranola and Gaston) met June 21, 1962, voted to exclude Teban, Felipe, Santos and Vicente and promulgated a written decision dated June 23, 1962 with warrants of exclusion (Exhs. E, E‑1, F); copies were mailed July 30, 1962. Jose’s case was not acted on further by the reviewing officer.
Teban was served with a warrant on March 10, 1964, arrested and detained; a habeas corpus petition was filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon City and dismissed; the Court of Appeals granted provisional bail and later a writ of habeas corpus, but the Second Division of the Supreme Court (in Commissioner of Immigration v. Garcia, L‑28082, June 28, 1974) reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court, upholding the Commissioners’ June 23, 1962 exclusion (that decision was then pending reconsideration). Meanwhile, Santos, Vicente and Felipe filed certiorari in the CFI of Manila (June 8–9, 1964). The trial court (Nov. 24, 1966) held that the board decisions admitting them had become final and that the Commissioners’ June 23, 1962 action was void ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Jose Caoile have a justiciable cause of action to seek certiorari to annul or enjoin the Board of Commissioners when no warrant of exclusion was issued against him?
- Could the Board of Commissioners validly set aside motu proprio the Board of Special Inquiry’s decisions within one year despite separate individual notations of “Noted” by two Associate Commissioners (i.e., were those notations tantamount to an affirmance)?
- Was the Commissioners’ June 23, 1962 decision a timely act within the one‑year period (operative date when the Board voted) despite mailing of the written decision on July 30, 1962, and did the petitioners receive constitutionally required due process (notice/hearing) before the Commissioners’ motu proprio review?
- Should the Second Division’s reversal in L‑28082 be reconsidere...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)