G.R. No. L-12231 - Ang Liong vs. Commissioner of Immigration

Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
Date: December 29, 1959
Parties: Ang Liong (Petitioner/Appellant) vs. Commissioner of Immigration (Respondent/Appellee)
Case Number: G.R. No. L-12231

Ang Liong filed a complaint seeking a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the forfeiture of cash bonds totaling P14,000, filed for his wife, Wong Woon Pun (alias Ong Siu), and son, Ang Hua, due to their failure to depart the Philippines by the specified date.
The bonds were required under Commonwealth Act No. 613 to ensure compliance with the Philippines' immigration laws.

Legal Principle: The Commissioner of Immigration has the authority to require cash bonds from temporary visitors to ensure their compliance with immigration laws.
Key Definitions:
- Temporary Admission: A limited stay granted to aliens under specified conditions.
- Bondsman: The party (in this case, Ang Liong) who guarantees the conditions of the bond.
Important Requirements:
- Cash bonds must guarantee the visitor's departure by the end of the authorized stay.
- No requests for extensions should be filed by the bondsman or the visitor.

Legal Principle: Breaching the conditions of the bond results in forfeiture.
Key Provisions:
- The bonds must be filed to guarantee the visitor's departure by the end of their authorized stay.
- Any request for extension violates the terms of the bond.
Consequences:
- Forfeiture of the cash bond if the visitor fails to depart as required.

Legal Principle: Extensions beyond the initial authorized stay must be formally requested and approved.
Key Definitions:
- Extension Request: A formal appeal to extend the duration of a visitor's stay.
Important Procedures:
- Requests for extensions must be processed and approved by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
- The Commissioner of Immigration retains the authority to enforce bond terms.

Legal Principle: The Commissioner is justified in declaring bonds forfeited for breaches of terms.
Key Findings:
- The appellant's actions (requesting extensions) constituted a violation of the bond terms.
- The Secretary for Foreign Affairs’ power to extend stays does not negate the bondsman's liability.

Initial stay of Ong Siu and Ang Hua: August 1, 1955, to November 1, 1955.
Extension requests to be filed before the expiration of the authorized stay.
Required departure date initially set as November 19, 1955, which was not adhered to.

Forfeiture: If the conditions of the bond are breached, the cash bond is forfeited to the government.
Costs: Appellant responsible for court costs as determined by the ruling.

Commonwealth Act No. 613: Governs the admission and regulation of aliens in the Philippines.
Section 40: Grants the Commissioner of Immigration authority over bond conditions.

The Commissioner of Immigration is empowered to require cash bonds from temporary visitors and enforce their terms strictly.
Violations of bond conditions, such as failing to ensure departure by the appointed date or improperly requesting extensions, lead to forfeiture of the bond.
The Secretary for Foreign Affairs may authorize extensions, but such actions do not relieve the bondsman from liability under the original bond terms.
The Supreme Court