G.R. No. 191810 - Go vs. Bureau of Immigration and Deportation

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191810)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

June 1999: Letter-complaint against Go and Go, Sr. initiated.
April 2000: Deportation complaint by Luis T. Ramos filed with BI.
February 14, 2001: BI Associate Commissioner dismissed complaint based on NBI report.
March 8, 2001: BI Board of Commissioners reversed dismissal and directed deportation charges.
July 3, 2001: Charge Sheet filed.
April 17, 2002: BI Board Decision ordering apprehension and deportation.
January 6, 2004 – May 3, 2004: RTC dismissed petition and dissolved injunction; motion for reconsideration denied.
October 25, 2004 and February 16, 2005: CA decisions adverse to petitioners in an earlier related appeal.
September 29, 2004 and February 11, 2005: Office of the President (OP) denials of administrative appeals.
September 4, 2009: Supreme Court decision in Go, Sr. v. Ramos (G.R. Nos. 167569, 167570 & 171946) sustaining earlier rulings.
October 28, 2009 and March 22, 2010: CA rulings in CA-G.R. SP No. 88840 declaring BI Decision final and executory.
June 22, 2015: Supreme Court decision in the present petition (review under Rule 45) affirming CA.

Core Factual Allegations and Documentary Record

Ramos submitted birth certificates and a registry page indicating Go’s citizenship as “FChinese” and showing siblings’ citizenship as Chinese. Go responded with a counter-affidavit asserting that his father, Go, Sr., elected Philippine citizenship (Oath of Allegiance dated July 11, 1950 and Affidavit of Election dated July 12, 1950), was a registered voter, and that Go’s own birth certificate listed his father’s citizenship as Filipino. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigated and reported that Go, Sr.’s election of Philippine citizenship complied with the 1935 Constitution and that the erasure on Go's original birth certificate could not be attributed to the family. The BI Associate Commissioner initially dismissed the deportation complaint relying on the NBI report; the BI Board later reversed and prosecuted deportation.

Administrative Decision and Evidence Weight

The BI Board relied on the birth certificates (of Go, Juliet, and Carlos, Jr.) and the registry page as public documents entitled to prima facie evidentiary weight under Civil Code Article 410. The Board found the election of citizenship by Go, Sr. irregular and untimely—observing sequence irregularity (Oath sworn before Affidavit of Election) and lateness (election allegedly filed five years after attaining majority)—and thus concluded Go was an alien subject to deportation. The Board ordered Go’s apprehension, deportation, and barring from reentry.

Subsequent Judicial and Executive Review

Petitioner and his father sought injunctive relief in the RTC and pursued certiorari relief in the CA (Rule 65) and petitions to the OP and the Supreme Court. The RTC dismissed the petition and dissolved the injunction; the CA affirmed the RTC. The OP denied administrative appeals. The Supreme Court earlier resolved related petitions (Go, Sr. v. Ramos) in September 2009, upholding the appellate court decision and sustaining the BI’s jurisdiction to continue deportation proceedings because petitioners did not present conclusive or substantially sufficient evidence to divest the BI of jurisdiction.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court in the Instant Petition

Whether the April 17, 2002 BI Decision had become final and executory.
Whether the CA erred in declaring the BI Decision final despite pending motions.
Whether the Court should rule on alleged irregularities in the OP’s resolutions.

Legal Standards Applied by the Supreme Court

Finality and immutability of judgments: the Court emphasized that a decision must reach finality and the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications, subject to narrow exceptions (clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, or circumstances after finality rendering execution unjust).
Prohibition on second motions for reconsideration: Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court and Section 3, Rule 15 of the Supreme Court Internal Rules bar second motions for reconsideration unless expressly allowed in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc.
Scope of Rule 45 review: petitions for review under Rule 45 generally do not permit reexamination of factual findings; factual questions are not ordinarily reviewable except in limited circumstances (e.g., lack of sufficient evidence or material misapprehension of facts).
Administrative deference: findings of fact by administrative agencies, especially those with special expertise like the Bureau of Immigration, are accorded respect and are generally not disturbed by courts absent grave abuse of discretion or similarly compelling reasons.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Rationale

The Court denied the petition. It held the CA correctly ruled that the BI’s April 17, 2002 Decision was final and executory. The Court found petitioner’s contention that a pending second motion for reconsideration prevented finality to be misplaced because a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule 52 and the Court’s internal rules; petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Attach a Second Motion for Reconsideration and the second motion were denied and noted without action. Given that all available remedies had been exhausted and earlier adjudications (including Go, Sr. v. Ramos) had already passed on substantially the same issues, the BI Decision had long since attained finality. The Court relied on the necessity of finality in litigation to prevent endless relitigation and reiterated recognized exceptions to immutability were not present here.

On the merits, the Court reiterated precedent: the BI has jurisdiction to hear and decide deportation cases and to determine the question of citizenship in that context; judicial intervention is warranted only when a court finds substantial evidence that the claim to citizenship is so strong that there are reasonable grounds to believe it correct or where the evidence is conclusive. The Court found no such conclusive or substantially sufficient evidence in the record that would oust BI jurisdiction. The Court also stressed deference to the BI’s fact-finding role and the rule limiting Rule 45 review of factual questions.

Procedural Concerns: Forum Shopping and Parallel Remedies

The Court noted the sequence of remedies used by petitioner (administrative appeals to the OP, petitions to the CA, and earlier Supreme Court petitions in related dockets). The Court reiterated the established pathways available following denial by the BI Board (appeal to the CA via Rule 43 if exceptions to exhaustion apply; administrative exhaustion through the Secretary of Justice and the OP; or direct certiorari before the CA on jurisdictional grounds). The Court concluded petitioner had used available remedies and that th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191810)

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify:
- October 28, 2009 Decision and March 22, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 88840; and
- Which affirmed as final and executory the April 17, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) in BSI-D.C. No. ADD-01-117.
Petitioner’s principal contention: the CA erred in declaring the April 17, 2002 BI Decision final and executory and in not ruling on alleged irregularities in the Office of the President (OP) Resolutions of September 29, 2004 and February 11, 2005.

Parties and Identifications

Petitioner: Jimmy T. Go a.k.a. Jaime T. Gaisano (referred to throughout as “petitioner Go” or “Go”).
Respondents: Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and its Commissioners, and Luis T. Ramos (Ramos) — the latter having filed the deportation complaint.
Petitioner’s father: Carlos Go, Sr. a.k.a. Go Kian Lu (Go, Sr.).
Other persons appearing in the records: siblings Juliet Go and Carlos Go, Jr.; complainant group identified as Concerned Employees of Noah’s Arc Group of Companies.

Relevant Case Citations and Court Composition

Supreme Court decision reported at 761 Phil. 223; 112 OG No. 5, 459 (February 1, 2016); Third Division; G.R. No. 191810, June 22, 2015.
Decision penned by Justice Peralta; Justices Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Jardeleza concur; Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), J., dissents (separate dissenting opinion).
Prior related Supreme Court decision: Go, Sr. v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 167569, 167570 & 171946, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 266.

Chronology and Procedural History (Key Dates and Events)

June 1999: Letter-complaint by Concerned Employees of Noah’s Arc Group of Companies against Go and Go, Sr. alleging Go, Sr. was an undocumented alien.
April 2000: Deportation complaint-affidavit filed by Luis T. Ramos before the BI alleging petitioner is a Chinese citizen born in the Philippines to Chinese parents.
November 23, 1999: Local civil registrar of Iloilo City issues Certificate of Birth for “Baby Jimmy Go” indicating citizenship as “FChinese” (documents relied upon in deportation proceedings).
October 16, 2000: NBI forwards Investigation Report to BI; Special Investigator and Chief of SLPS find Go, Sr.’s election of Philippine citizenship in accordance with the 1935 Constitution, and that alleged erasure on petitioner’s original birth certificate could not be attributed to petitioner or Go, Sr.
February 14, 2001: BI Associate Commissioner Linda L. Malenab-Hornilla issues a Resolution dismissing the deportation complaint against petitioner based on the NBI report.
March 8, 2001: BI Board of Commissioners reverses the dismissal, holding Go, Sr.’s election of Philippine citizenship was made out of time; directs filing of deportation charges.
July 3, 2001: Charge Sheet filed against petitioner for violations of Section 37(a)(9) in relation to Section 45(e) of C.A. No. 613, as amended.
November 2001: Petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for injunctive relief filed by petitioner Go and Go, Sr. before RTC of Pasig City, Branch 167, docketed SCA No. 2218.
April 17, 2002: BI Board issues Decision ordering apprehension, deportation to China, and barring of entry into the Philippines (BSI-D.C. No. ADD-01-117).
January 6, 2004: RTC dissolves writ and dismisses petition SCA No. 2218 for lack of merit; Motion for Reconsideration denied May 3, 2004.
October 25, 2004 and February 16, 2005: CA Decision and resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 85143 upholding RTC dismissal; CA decisions later affirmed by the Supreme Court in Go, Sr. v. Ramos (September 4, 2009).
November 16, 2004: BI issues warrant of deportation; petitioner apprehended and detained.
September 29, 2004 and February 11, 2005: Office of the President (OP) declines to grant relief, concurring with Board findings.
October 28, 2009 and March 22, 2010: CA dismisses Rule 43 petition and denies reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 88840, ruling the April 17, 2002 BI Decision had become final and executory.
August 18, 2010: Records show petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Attach Second Motion for Reconsideration and Second Motion for Reconsideration were denied and noted without action, respectively.
June 22, 2015 (decision rendered; received July 29, 2015): Supreme Court issues final decision denying the Rule 45 petition and affirming CA’s rulings.

Factual Background (Material Facts as Presented)

Complaint basis: Allegation that Go, Sr. was an undocumented alien who later adopted the Filipino name “Carlos Go, Sr.” and married Rosario Tan, producing ten children including petitioner Go.
Ramos’s evidence: Certificate of Birth of petitioner showing citizenship “FChinese”; Registry of Births page stating citizenship of Baby Jimmy Go as “Chinese”; birth certificates of Juliet and Carlos, Jr. indicating they were born of Chinese parents.
Petitioner’s denials/defenses:
- Asserts father Go, Sr. was son of a Chinese father and Filipina mother, and elected Philippine citizenship (Oath of Allegiance on July 11, 1950; Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship on July 12, 1950).
- Points to Go, Sr.’s status as a registered voter who voted in 1952 and 1955 elections.
- Notes siblings Juliet and Carlos, Jr. born in 1946 and 1949 respectively — assertedly before Go, Sr.’s election — explaining their birth certificates showing father as Chinese.
- Asserts petitioner’s birth certificate records his father’s citizenship as “Filipino.”
NBI findings: Special Investigator (Roberto B. Dupingay) and Chief of SLPS affirmed that Go, Sr.’s election of Philippine citizenship was in accordance with 1935 Constitution; erasure on petitioner’s original birth certificate could not be attributed to petitioner or Go, Sr.; NBI opinion that citizenship of children follows that of father by operation of law when father elected citizenship.

BI Proceedings, Findings and Rationale (April 17, 2002 BI Decision)

BI Board weighed documentary evidence submitted against petitioner:
- Certificate of Birth of petitioner (issued November 23, 1999) showing “FChinese”;
- Certificate of Live Birth of Juliet Go showing citizenship “Chinese” and stating parents Carlos Go as “Chinese” and Rosario Tan as “Chinese”;
- Certificate of Live Birth of Carlos Go, Jr. showing citizenship “Chinese.”
Legal basis for evidentiary weight: Article 410 of the Civil Code — civil registry books and related documents are public documents and prima facie evidence of facts contained.
BI Board conclusions:
- The certificates are prima facie evidence of petitioner’s and family’s Chinese nationality.
- Go, Sr.’s purported election of Philippine citizenship was irregular and void for lateness: election allegedly filed five years after reaching age of majority (filed July 12, 1950 when Go, Sr. was 26 years, 2 months, 16 days).
- Irregularity also perceived in sequence: certified true copy of Oath of Allegiance appears to have been sworn to July 11, 1950 while Affidavit of Election sworn July 12, 1950 — Board viewed oath preceding election as contrary to Section 1 of C.A. No. 625.
Dispositive order: Apprehend petitioner and deport to China; upon expulsion, bar entry into the Philippines; without prejudice to continuation of criminal proceedings.

Charges Filed Against Petitioner

Charge Sheet (July 3, 2001) accused petitioner of:
- Being born October 25, 1952 in Iloilo City with citizenship recorded as “FChinese”;
- Using stealth/falsified documents and untruthful declarations to cover true Chinese citizenship and illegally obtaining a Philippine passport under JAIME T. GAISANO;
- Representing himself as a Filipino for fraudulent purposes and to evade immigration requirements — violations of Section 37(a)(9) in relation to Section 45(e) of C.A. No. 613, as amended.

Judicial Remedies Invoked by Petitioner (All Proceedings)

Petition for certiorari and prohibition with injunctive relief before RTC, Pasig City, Branch 167 (SCA No. 2218) challenging BI Board jurisdiction and seeking nullity of March 8, 2001 Resolution and the Charge Sheet.
Supplemental petition to nullify April 17, 2002 BI Decision; RTC issued and later dissolved writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction; RTC dismissed petition for lack of merit (January 6, 2004), denial of motion for reconsideration (May 3, 2004).
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 85143) — CA affirmed RTC decision