G.R. No. 204105 - Rosas vs. Montor

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204105)

Petitioner’s memorandum and recommended exclusion

Petitioner Rosas submitted a memorandum to BI Commissioner Alipio F. Fernandez (dated in the record) reporting the Japan exclusion and recounting confessions by the two aliens that they purchased the foreign passports in Tehran, attached their photos to the genuine owners’ passports, and used them to travel without visas. The memorandum recommended exclusion and blacklisting, citing violations of the PIA (Section 29).

Exclusion order, custody and departure

An Exclusion Order was issued on grounds of “Not Properly Documented” and “No Entry Visa.” On December 17, 2004, petitioner directed security guards Napilot and Ugarte to escort the aliens from BI detention to MCIA pursuant to the exclusion order. On December 19, 2004 the two aliens were released from detention and allowed to depart for Tehran via Kuala Lumpur on Malaysian Airlines.

Complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman

On January 18, 2005, respondents Sabdullah and Montor filed a Complaint‑Affidavit with the OMB against petitioner and the two security guards, charging grave misconduct, violation of RA 3019 Section 3(e), and conduct prejudicial to the public service. The complaint alleged that petitioner irregularly allowed the restricted Iranian nationals to leave the country without initiating deportation or criminal proceedings despite their use of fraudulent passports and potential threat to national security.

Petitioner’s defense before the OMB

In his counter‑affidavit, petitioner denied culpability, contending that exclusion is the function of the examining immigration officers and that the Head Supervisor (Madarang) supervised those duties. He asserted lack of prior knowledge of the aliens’ first entry, argued that exclusion under Section 29(a)(17) (entry without Philippine visa using Iranian passports) was appropriate, and explained that Japanese authorities had confiscated the counterfeit passports.

OMB finding and penalty

On March 2, 2007, the OMB found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct for unduly releasing the two Iranian nationals, citing manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence. The OMB concluded petitioner had knowledge of the fraudulent passports and had failed to initiate appropriate proceedings. It imposed the penalty of dismissal. The OMB acquitted the security guards, finding no conspiracy and that they acted on petitioner’s orders. The OMB’s decision was ordered implemented and a motion for reconsideration was denied.

Court of Appeals ruling

Petitioner sought review in the Court of Appeals, which on March 9, 2012 affirmed the OMB decision. The CA held there was sufficient evidence that the release was irregular and not in accordance with immigration laws, emphasizing that petitioner knew the aliens had been excluded from Japan for using fraudulent passports and therefore deportation proceedings and criminal charges under Section 37(a)(9) in relation to Sections 45 and 46 of the PIA should have been initiated.

Issues presented on petition for review

Petitioner raised multiple assignments of error, essentially contending: (1) he should not be dismissed for actions taken by assigned immigration officers in issuing an exclusion order; (2) there was no evidence he gave unwarranted benefits or acted with corrupt motive; (3) initiation of deportation/criminal proceedings was the Commissioner’s prerogative and not his duty; (4) any delay or irregularity in exclusion had factual and legal basis; and (5) the CA erred in disregarding settled facts showing no misconduct by him.

Standard of review and evidentiary threshold

The Supreme Court reiterated that the findings of the OMB are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. It defined substantial evidence as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (more than a mere scintilla). Factual findings by the OMB merit great weight because of its expertise; questions of substantial evidence are generally beyond the Supreme Court’s power to reexamine as trier of facts.

Statutory framework — distinction between exclusion and deportation

The decision summarizes the PIA framework: examining immigration officers determine admissibility per Section 29 and may issue exclusion orders for barred classes; exclusion is removal prior to lawful admission, generally effected immediately and may be accompanied by detention under Section 25. Deportation (Sections 37–39) is a separate formal removal process for aliens already admitted or present in the country and may follow arrest and determination by the Board of Commissioners. Section 37(a)(9) authorizes arrest and deportation for aliens who commit acts described in Sections 45 and 46; Section 45(c) penalizes use of false immigration documents; Section 46 penalizes unlawful entry, harboring, or concealing of aliens and prescribes fines, imprisonment and deportation.

Application of law to the facts — confessions and appropriate proceedings

The two Iranian nationals confessed they knowingly used falsified passports to enter the Philippines on December 7 and to leave for Japan on December 14, and that Japanese authorities confiscated

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204105)

Procedural Posture

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails the March 9, 2012 Decision and October 16, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05497, which affirmed the Office of the Ombudsman’s (OMB) March 2, 2007 Decision and July 4, 2008 Order in OMB-V-A-05-0036-A finding petitioner Geronimo S. Rosas guilty of grave misconduct.
The OMB rendered its Decision on March 2, 2007 and issued an Order for immediate implementation on December 27, 2007; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the OMB was denied.
Petitioner sought relief in the CA by a petition for review under Rule 43; the CA issued its Decision on March 9, 2012 affirming the OMB and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated October 16, 2012.
The present petition to the Supreme Court was resolved in a decision dated October 14, 2015 denying the appeal for lack of merit; costs were imposed against petitioner.
The Supreme Court Justices noted include Villarama, Jr., J. (author of the opinion), with concurrence by Peralta (Acting Chairperson), Perez, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ.; the CA decision (footnoted) was penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with other members concurring.

Factual Background

On December 7, 2004, two Iranian nationals, Jafar Saketi Taromsari and Jalal Shokr Pour Ziveh, arrived at Mactan-Cebu International Airport (MCIA).
They traveled under counterfeit or tampered passports bearing false names: Taromsari used the name "Marco Rabitti" (Italian passport) and Ziveh used "Jaime Humberto Nenciares Garcia" (Mexican passport).
After staying in Cebu for a few days, they left for Narita, Japan on December 14, 2004.
On December 16, 2004, Japanese immigration authorities discovered the passports were counterfeit and, for use of fraudulent passports and lack of entry visa, denied them entry and sent them back to the Philippines; they arrived back at MCIA on the same day at 6:45 p.m. and were admitted to the Bureau of Immigration (BI) Cebu Detention Center.
A Memorandum dated December 15, 2004 (reported events of December 16) from petitioner Geronimo S. Rosas to BI Commissioner Alipio F. Fernandez recounted the Narita incident, the admission by the subjects that they purchased the Italian and Mexican passports from a person named "KURAM" in Tehran, and their payment of US$3,000 (US$1,500 each).
The Memorandum reported the subjects' admissions that they entered the Philippines on December 7, 2004 on board MI 566 from Singapore using the false passports, left for Narita on December 14, and were returned on December 16.
An Exclusion Order was subsequently issued against Taromsari and Ziveh on grounds of "Not Properly Documented" and "No Entry Visa."
On December 17, 2004, petitioner allegedly issued a written order to security guards Elmer Napilot and Jose Ramon Ugarte to escort the two detainees from the BI Detention in Mandaue City to MCIA pursuant to the exclusion order; on December 19, 2004, the two were released from detention and departed for Tehran, Iran via Kuala Lumpur on Malaysian Airlines.

Investigation — Admissions and Travel History

Investigation conducted by Atty. Serafin A. Abellon, Special Prosecutor, in the presence of Regional Director Geronimo S. Rosas, elicited admissions from the subjects that:
- They purchased the Italian and Mexican passports in Tehran, placed their pictures over the real owners’ pictures, and paid US$1,500 each.
- Their purpose was to travel and find work in Japan to earn money; one had prior work experience in Japan from 1999 to 2002 and had been previously deported from Japan.
- They had initially entered the Philippines on December 7, 2004 using the fraudulent passports and left for Japan on December 14, 2004.
In interrogatories reproduced in the record, the subjects admitted they used fake Italian and Mexican passports in entering the Philippines, that the Japanese authorities confiscated those passports, and that they used Iranian passports for parts of their journey (Bangkok, Malaysia) before presenting the counterfeit passports at MCIA.
The subjects acknowledged awareness that their acts violated Philippine immigration laws but stated necessity to use fake documents to secure employment abroad.

Charges Filed and Allegations

On January 18, 2005, respondents Imra-Ali Sabdullah and Dilausan S. Montor, BI Cebu employees, filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the OMB against petitioner Rosas and security guards Napilot and Ugarte for grave misconduct, violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 (anti-graft), and conduct prejudicial to the interest of public service.
Allegations included irregular and anomalous handling and disposition of the case that allowed the restricted Iranian nationals to leave the country without initiating any proceedings for violations of immigration laws, and that the detainees were potential threats to national interest and security.
It was contended the Iranian nationals should have been charged for deportation under Section 37(a)(9) in relation to Sections 45 and 46 of the Philippine Immigration Act (PIA of 1940).

Petitioner’s Defense and Counter-Affidavit

Petitioner denied the allegations and asserted lack of involvement in the primary functions of examining immigration officers, contending that examination, determination of exclusion, and primary inspection duties fell under the assigned immigration officers and the Head Supervisor, Mr. Casimiro P. Madarang III.
Petitioner averred he did not have prior knowledge of the subjects’ first entry into the Philippines and asserted he was not at MCIA at the time of their arrival on December 7, 2004.
He maintained that the subjects were excludable under Section 29(a)(17) (initially a clerical reference to Sec. 29(a)(14) was corrected to 29(a)(17)) because they used Iranian passports without Philippine entry visas on December 16, 2004, and that the counterfeit Italian and Mexican passports were confiscated by Japanese authorities when Japan excluded them.
Petitioner cited his December 17, 2004 Memorandum recommending their placement in the blacklist as evidence that he did not give preferential treatment.

Ombudsman’s Findings and Ruling

The OMB, in its March 2, 2007 Decision, found substantial evidence of petitioner’s grave misconduct.
The OMB concluded that by unduly releasing the two Iranian nationals, petitioner displayed manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.
The OMB held that petitioner’s claim of lack of prior knowledge was belied by his December 17, 2004 Memorandum.
Security guards Napilot and Ugarte were acquitted for acting on petitioner’s orders and due to lack of evidence of conspiracy.
The OMB imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL on petitioner pursuant to Ru