A.M. No. RTJ-06-2018 - Office of the Solicitor General vs. De Castro

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2018)

Factual Background

On 6 September 2005 immigration officers prevented Gao Yuan from boarding a flight after an Embassy request from the People’s Republic of China alleged she was a fugitive charged with embezzlement, and the Bureau of Immigration cancelled her passport and issued a summary deportation order dated 7 September 2005. Her husband, James Mahshi, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus on 8 September 2005 impleading Commissioner Alipio Fernandez, Jr. as respondent and asserting illegal detention and a pending petition for asylum; Executive Judge Antonio Eugenio, Jr. issued a seventy-two-hour TRO the same day. The matter was raffled to Branch 3 of the RTC, where Judge Antonio I. De Castro presided.

Trial Court Proceedings

After the Commissioner filed a Return of the Writ attaching the Charge Sheet and the Summary Deportation Order, the parties agreed, at respondent’s suggestion, to extend the seventy-two-hour TRO for seventeen days to 28 September 2005 and to file memoranda. On 13 September 2005 respondent issued an Order of Release directing immediate discharge upon posting of a cash bond of P250,000, but the Bureau of Immigration initially refused release for lack of BI clearance. Commissioner Fernandez filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration; on 16 September 2005 respondent issued an interlocutory order placing Gao Yuan under the provisional custody of the RTC subject to conditions, and on 19 September 2005 he reiterated that the release was temporary and declared the Commissioner’s notice of appeal premature. On 23 September 2005 respondent ordered a warrant of arrest for failure to appear and denied the prayer for a writ of injunction.

Administrative Complaint and Procedural History

The Office of the Solicitor General filed an administrative complaint on 30 September 2005 against Executive Judge Eugenio, Jr. and Judge De Castro alleging knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross disregard of law and jurisprudence, and dishonesty and abuse of authority for ordering the temporary release of Gao Yuan. The complaint against Judge Eugenio, Jr. was dismissed as mere judgment error on 30 August 2006. The complaint against respondent was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, investigated by a Court of Appeals Justice, and resulted in a Report and Recommendation proposing discipline.

Parties’ Contentions

The OSG maintained that respondent acted in blatant disregard of C.A. No. 613, particularly Section 37(e), and of controlling habeas corpus procedure, citing Commissioner Rodriguez v. Judge Bonifacio, and argued that the RTC had no power to release an alien in deportation proceedings and that the issuance of injunctive relief was procedurally defective because the relief sought appeared in an unverified supplement. Judge De Castro defended his actions as within the RTC’s original jurisdiction under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Rule 102, asserted that the petition raised factual allegations of illegal detention and due process violations, and maintained that his orders were humanitarian and grounded in the exigent facts.

Report and Recommendation of Investigating Justice

Justice Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok found that Branch 3 had properly been vested with jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition upon filing; however, she determined that the Return filed by the Commissioner, with attachments showing a Charge Sheet and Summary Deportation Order, invoked Section 4, Rule 102, and thus the RTC should have treated the matter under the standards of that rule. She concluded that respondent’s orders releasing Gao Yuan upon bond and assuming custody were devoid of legal basis because, under prevailing jurisprudence, RTCs do not have power to release aliens detained pursuant to deportation orders. Finding no bad faith but noting inadequate familiarity with controlling law, she recommended a two-month suspension with admonition.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court reviewed the nature and purpose of the writ and the controlling provisions of Rule 102, particularly Section 4, which precludes allowance of the writ where the person is in custody under process issued by a court or by an authorized governmental body, and Section 13, which treats the return as prima facie evidence and places the burden on the petitioner to prove illegality. The Court found that when the petition for habeas corpus was filed on 8 September 2005 the Charge Sheet and Summary Deportation Order had already been issued on 7 September 2005; thus Gao Yuan’s detention rested upon lawful process and the RTC no longer had jurisdiction to discharge her by way of habeas corpus. Relying on precedents including Commissioner Rodriguez v. Judge Bonifacio, the Court reiterated that the power to grant release on bond in deportation proceedings is vested in the Commissioner of Immigration by Section 37(e) of C.A. No. 613, that the exercise of such power is discretionary, and that the courts of first instance lack authority to release an alien detained under a deportation order. The Court observed that cases allowing bail in extradition or deportation contexts involved exceptional circumstances not present here, and that respondent’s humanitarian motives did not cure the legal error.

Disciplinary Finding and Penalty

The Court concluded that respondent’s failure to apply the elementary and controlling rules governing habeas corpus and immigration detention constituted gross ignorance of the law. Although the investigation did not establish malice or bad faith, the law requires that judges be conversant with basic le

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2018)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Office of the Solicitor General filed an administrative complaint against Judge Antonio I. De Castro alleging knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross disregard of law and prevailing jurisprudence, and dishonesty and abuse of authority.
Judge Antonio I. De Castro was the presiding judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Manila who issued the orders challenged in the complaint.
Executive Judge Antonio Eugenio, Jr. issued an initial 72-hour TRO on 8 September 2005 and was impleaded in the original administrative complaint but his case was later dismissed.
The administrative complaint arose from habeas corpus proceedings involving a detained alien, Gao Yuan, and related orders dated 9, 13, 16 and 23 September 2005 issued by respondent.
The matter was investigated by a Court of Appeals Justice who submitted a Report and Recommendation prior to resolution by the Court.

Key Factual Allegations

Gao Yuan, a national of the People’s Republic of China, was arrested by Bureau of Immigration officers on 6 September 2005 pursuant to a request from the PROC and detained at the BI Detention Center.
A Charge Sheet and a Summary Deportation Order dated 7 September 2005 had been issued against Gao Yuan before the habeas corpus petition was filed.
James Mahshi, husband of Gao Yuan, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus with application for TRO on 8 September 2005 alleging illegal detention and seeking injunctive relief.
Executive Judge Eugenio issued a 72-hour TRO on 8 September 2005, and the TRO was later extended by agreement to 17 days up to 28 September 2005 before respondent’s sala.
Judge De Castro issued an Order of Release dated 13 September 2005 directing immediate discharge upon the posting of a cash bond of P250,000, and later an interlocutory order placing Gao Yuan under the custody of the RTC subject to conditions.

Procedural History

The habeas corpus petition was filed and raffled to Branch 3 on 8 September 2005 and the Return of the Writ with attached Charge Sheet and Summary Deportation Order was filed by the Commissioner of Immigration on 8–9 September 2005.
Respondent conducted hearings and extended the TRO to 28 September 2005 with memoranda deadlines and then issued orders on 9, 13 and 16 September 2005 affecting the custody and temporary release of Gao Yuan.
The Bureau of Immigration refused physical release due to lack of BI clearance and filed an urgent motion for reconsideration and later a Notice of Appeal.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed an administrative complaint on 30 September 2005, which was re-docketed and investigated by a Court of Appeals Justice before being resolved by the Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the writ of habeas corpus after the filing of a Charge Sheet and issuance of a Summary Deportation Order by the Bureau of Immigration.
Whether Judge De Castro lawfully ordered the provisional release of an alien detained under a Summary Deportation Order and took custody of the alien pending the TRO.
Whether respondent’s actions violated procedural rules governing habeas corpus petitions, including Section 4, Rule 102 and Section 13, Rule 102, and Rule 58 on injunctions.
Whether respondent’s conduct amounted to gross ignorance of the law warranting administrative sanction.

Contentions of Complainant

Office of the Solicitor General contended that the release on bail of an alien in deportation proceedings falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Immigration under C.A. No. 613 and Section 37 (9) (e), and not within the authority of the courts.
Complainant argued that the grant of injunctive relief was procedurally defective because the release was sought only in an unverified Supplement to the TRO and not in the verified habeas corpus petition, contrary to Sec. 4(a), Rule 58.
Complainant maintained that respondent’s declaration that the Notice of Appeal was premature was illegal because resp