Title
Rosas vs. Montor
Case
G.R. No. 204105
Decision Date
Oct 14, 2015
Two Iranian nationals used counterfeit passports to enter the Philippines and travel to Japan. Upon their return, a BI official released them without initiating deportation or criminal proceedings, leading to his dismissal for grave misconduct.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204105)

Key Dates

• December 7, 2004 – Taromsari and Ziveh first entry into the Philippines.
• December 14–16, 2004 – Attempted entry into Japan; returned to MCIA.
• December 17, 2004 – Exclusion order issued by BI.
• January 18, 2005 – Complaint-affidavit filed with Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).
• March 2, 2007 & July 4, 2008 – OMB Decision and Order finding grave misconduct.
• March 9, 2012 & October 16, 2012 – Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution affirming OMB.
• October 14, 2015 – Supreme Court Decision under 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – framework for administrative due process and sovereign power over immigration.
• Commonwealth Act No. 613 (PIA of 1940), as amended – Sections 6, 10, 25, 29(a)(17), 37(a)(9), 45(c) and 46.
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) – Section 3(e) on manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence.
• Rules of Court – Rule 45 (certiorari), Rule 43 (appeal from Ombudsman).

Factual Background

Two Iranian nationals arrived at MCIA on December 7, 2004 under assumed Italian and Mexican identities. After traveling to Japan on December 14, they were denied entry on December 16 for using counterfeit passports and returned to MCIA, where they admitted their misuse of fraudulent documents. Regional Director Rosas recommended their exclusion and blacklisting under Section 29(a)(17) of the PIA. An exclusion order was issued, and security guards escorted the Iranians back to Tehran via Malaysia on December 19, 2004.

Proceedings Before the Ombudsman

Respondents Montor and Sabdullah filed charges of grave misconduct, RA 3019 Section 3(e) violation, and conduct prejudicial to public service against Rosas, Napilot, and Ugarte. They alleged that Rosas improperly allowed two restricted aliens to leave without pursuing deportation or criminal charges for passport fraud and national-security risks. Rosas denied personal involvement and insisted exclusion was proper.

OMB Decision and Sanction

The OMB found Rosas guilty of grave misconduct for “manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence” in releasing the Iranians without initiating deportation proceedings under PIA Sections 37(a)(9) and 45. Napilot and Ugarte were exonerated. The penalty of dismissal from service was imposed under Executive Order 292, Book V, Rule XIV, Section 23.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the OMB, holding that Rosas knew the Iranians had been excluded by Japan for fraudulent passports and therefore had a duty to initiate deportation and criminal proceedings. Their irregular release violated immigration laws. The CA dismissed Rosas’s petition for lack of merit.

Issue on Review

Whether substantial evidence supports Rosas’s dismissal for grave misconduct in releasing the two Iranian nationals without initiating required deportation and criminal proceedings under the PIA, despite a valid exclusion order.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Factual and Legal Questions

The Court held that:

  1. OMB and CA findings are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence.
  2. Exclusion and deportation are distinct: exclusion denies entry; deportation removes one already admitted and carries additional penalties (fine and possible imprisonment).
  3. Under PIA Sections 37(a)(9) and 45(c), use of a falsified immigration document mandates arrest and deportation proceedings.
  4. Taromsari and Ziveh confessed to knowingly using counterfeit passports to enter the Philippines on December 7 and again on December 14, 2004.

Duty to Initiate Deportation and Criminal Proceedings

As Regional Director, Rosas had supervisory duty to ensure that findings of passport fraud triggered both deportat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.