Case Summary (G.R. No. 244737)
Key Dates
• March 14, 2000 – Marriage to Mychel Rebustillo (Caloocan City)
• August 20, 2008 – Marriage to Michelle Duenas (Makati City)
• September 18, 2012 – Nullification of marriage to Rebustillo
• September 4, 2015 – Duenas’s deportation complaint filed with BI
• December 8, 2016 – BOC-BI Resolution declares Nagel undesirable and orders deportation
• September 7, 2017 – BOC-BI denies Nagel’s motion for reconsideration
• December 14, 2017 & June 13, 2018 – CA Resolutions dismiss Rule 43 petition
• October 23, 2023 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Commonwealth Act No. 613 (Philippine Immigration Act of 1940), as amended – Sections 13(a), 37(a)(7)
• Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (Act No. 2711) – Section 69
• Immigration Memorandum Circular No. SBM-2015-010
• BI Operations Order No. SBM-2014-048
• Rule 43, Rules of Court (CA appeals)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court (Petition for Review on Certiorari)
Background of Deportation Proceedings
Michelle G. Duenas filed a complaint alleging that Nagel contracted multiple marriages in violation of Philippine law: to Rebustillo (2000), to a Taiwanese national (2005), and to Duenas (2008) while still married. Duenas asserted that Nagel’s pattern of bigamous marriages demonstrated undesirability and contravened public policy. The BI’s Special Prosecutor required Nagel’s counter-affidavit and subsequently filed a charge sheet with the BSI for (1) breach of visa conditions under CA 613, Section 37(a)(7), and (2) undesirability under Act 2711, Section 69.
BI Proceedings and BOC-BI Resolution
After receipt of memoranda and evidence, the BOC-BI, acting on the BSI recommendation, issued a December 8, 2016 Resolution declaring Nagel an undesirable alien. It held that substantial evidence—namely two Philippine court annulment decisions—proved bigamy. Citing BI Operations Order No. SBM-2014-048 and public-policy considerations (sanctity of marriage), the BOC-BI ordered Nagel’s deportation, blacklisting, and cancellation of his ACR I Card.
Motion for Reconsideration and BOC-BI Decision
Nagel sought partial reconsideration, arguing: absence of a criminal conviction for bigamy; lack of criminal intent; compliance efforts after annulment; and parental rights over his Filipino child. Though the BSI recommended granting relief, the BOC-BI denied reconsideration on September 7, 2017, reaffirming the undesirability finding and emphasizing Nagel’s trifling with Philippine marriage laws.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Nagel filed a Rule 43 Petition for Review directly with the CA, which dismissed it on December 14, 2017 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and improper remedy selection. His motion for reconsideration, invoking exceptions (jurisdictional defect, due process violation, irreparable harm, urgency, lack of adequate remedy), was denied on June 13, 2018 for lack of new grounds.
Supreme Court Issue
Whether the CA correctly dismissed Nagel’s petition for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Nagel contended that exceptions applied and that the BOC-BI lacked authority to deem him guilty of bigamy. The BOC-BI, via the Solicitor General, asserted that Nagel raised questions of fact, failed to prove any exception, and was properly found undesirable.
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Under the doctrine, parties must first exhaust available administrative processes before seeking judicial relief. Remedies against the BOC-BI include: (a) Rule 43 appeal to the CA with exceptions; (b) appeals to the Secretary of Justice and the President, followed by judicial appeal; or (c) certiorari on jurisdictional grounds if no adequate remedies exist. The doctrine promotes deference, efficiency, and orderly
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 244737)
Facts
- Petitioner Andre Charles Nagel, a Dutch national, was married three times in Asia: first to Mychel Rebustillo (Filipina) on March 14, 2000 in Caloocan City; second in 2005 in Taiwan; and third to Michelle G. Duenas (Filipina) on August 20, 2008 in Makati City, annulled November 26, 2010.
- On September 4, 2015, Duenas filed a complaint with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) seeking Nagel’s deportation on grounds of bigamy and undesirability under Philippine immigration laws.
- Special Prosecutor Mendoza-Gabriana ordered Nagel to file a counter-affidavit and subsequently charged him before the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) for:
- Violation of stay conditions under Section 37(a)(7) of the Immigration Act of 1940 (Commonwealth Act 613, as amended), and
- Undesirability under Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, citing his bigamous marriages as a risk to public interest.
Proceedings Before the Board of Commissioners, Bureau of Immigration (BOC-BI)
- On December 8, 2016, the BOC-BI, acting on the BSI’s recommendation, declared Nagel an undesirable alien and ordered his deportation.
- The resolution rested on:
- Substantial evidence of bigamy, given that his marriage to Rebustillo was annulled only on September 18, 2012, after he had wed Duenas in 2008;
- BI Operations Order No. SBM-2014-048, deeming any criminal act punishable by one year or more as ground for undesirability; and
- The sanctity of marriage under the Constitution and the public policy risk posed by his propensity to contract illegal marriages.
- Nagel’s motion for partial reconsideration argued:
- Lack of criminal conviction for bigamy and absence of indictment;
- Mandatory dismissal of bigamy complaints under Immigration Memorandum Circular No. SBM-2015-010,