Case Digest (G.R. No. 180364)
Facts:
Tze Sun Wong v. Kenny Wong, G.R. No. 180364, December 03, 2014, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Tze Sun Wong is a Chinese national who entered the Philippines in 1975 and became a permanent resident in 1982; he lived, worked, married and operated a travel business in the country. Respondent Kenny Wong, proprietor of San Andres Construction Supply, filed a Complaint‑Affidavit with the Bureau of Immigration (BOI) on September 12, 2000 alleging (1) that petitioner misrepresented his nationality as Filipino on his driver’s license application and (2) that petitioner and a business partner issued bouncing post‑dated checks, and he asked the BOI to investigate for immigration law violations.
Petitioner filed a Counter‑Affidavit on September 28, 2000 denying intentional misrepresentation and claiming that an unnamed third person filled out his driver’s license application and made erroneous entries as to name, birth year and nationality. The Acting Special Prosecutor found probable cause and filed deportation charges; after a mission order and referral, the BOI Board of Commissioners (signed initially by Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo and Associate Commissioner Daniel C. Cueto) conducted proceedings and, in a Judgment dated October 2, 2002, ordered petitioner deported for illegal use of an alias and for misrepresenting himself as Filipino in violation of Section 37(a)(7) and (9) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 and related amendments (including RA 6085). The BOI stressed that driver’s‑license applications require personal appearance and concluded petitioner actively participated in procuring a fraudulent license.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration; the BOI denied the motion in a December 4, 2002 Resolution signed by four commissioners. Petitioner appealed administratively to the Secretary of Justice. Acting Secretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez affirmed the BOI in a March 22, 2004 Resolution; after another motion, Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez likewise denied relief in a September 9, 2005 Resolution, rejecting petitioner’s contention that the BOI judgment was void because only two commissioners had signed the October 2 decision (citing Section 8 of the Immigration Act that the decision of any two members shall prevail); the later resolution showed full concurrence of four commissioners.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated May 15, 2007 (pened by Associate Justice Lucenito N. Tagle, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Mariflor Punzalan‑Castillo concurring), the CA denied the certiorari petition on both procedural and substantive grounds, observing that appeals from BOI judgments are generally brought to the CA u...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly deny petitioner’s petition for certiorari? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)