G.R. No. 180364 - Tze Sun Wong vs. Wong

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180364)

Factual Background

Petitioner entered the Philippines in 1975 and obtained permanent resident status in 1982, married and lived in the country, and operated a business, Happy Sun Travel and Tours. On September 12, 2000, respondent filed a complaint‑affidavit with the BOI alleging that petitioner misrepresented his nationality as Filipino in a drivers license application and that petitioner and a business partner issued post‑dated checks amounting to P886,922.00 which bounced. Petitioner, in a counter‑affidavit dated September 28, 2000, denied intentional misrepresentation and asserted that another person filled the drivers license form and entered incorrect personal data.

BOI Proceedings and Ruling

The Acting Special Prosecutor found probable cause and filed deportation charges, after which the BOI Board of Commissioners conducted proceedings. In a Judgment dated October 2, 2002, the BOI ordered petitioner deported for illegal use of the alias “Joseph Wong” and for misrepresenting himself as a Filipino in the drivers license application, citing Sec. 37(a)(7) and (9) of Commonwealth Act No. 613 and provisions of RA 6085. The BOI noted that drivers license applications require the applicant’s personal appearance and concluded that petitioner participated in procuring a fraudulent license. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by BOI Resolution dated December 4, 2002.

Appeal to the Secretary of Justice

Petitioner appealed administratively to the Secretary of Justice. In a Resolution dated March 22, 2004, Acting Secretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez affirmed the BOI Judgment, holding that the presence of petitioner’s supposed Philippine citizenship on the face of the drivers license precluded his claim that a stranger had filled the form. The Acting Secretary also found the alias use to be unlawful absent registration or judicial authorization. Petitioner later argued that the BOI Judgment was void because only two commissioners signed it; on September 9, 2005, Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez rejected that argument under Sec. 8 of the Immigration Act, which provides that the decision of any two members of the BOI shall prevail, and noted that four commissioners subsequently signed a resolution denying reconsideration.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated May 15, 2007, the CA denied the petition. The CA observed that the petitioner had pursued the wrong remedy because decisions of the BOI Board of Commissioners are appealable to the CA under Rule 43, Rules of Court, and that no countermand by the President or other action had rendered the BOI decision nonfinal. The CA also affirmed the substantive finding that petitioner’s misrepresentations warranted deportation. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated October 23, 2007.

Issue Presented

The sole issue for resolution was whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner’s petition for certiorari challenging the BOI deportation order as affirmed by the Secretary of Justice and the CA.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision dated May 15, 2007 and Resolution dated October 23, 2007. The Court found the petition to be without merit and upheld the chain of administrative and judicial rulings ordering petitioner’s deportation.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Analysis

The Court explained that Rule 43, Rules of Court provides for appeals to the CA from decisions of quasi‑judicial agencies and that the CA’s appellate jurisdiction is grounded in Sec. 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. The Court surveyed controlling precedents, including Dwikarna v. Hon. Domingo, Caoile v. Vivo, and Kiani v. The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, and restated the remedies available after a BOI denial of reconsideration: (a) a Rule 43 appeal to the CA where exceptions to exhaustion of administrative remedies attend; (b) administrative appeals within the executive branch, i.e., to the Secretary of Justice and then to the Office of the President, followed by a Rule 43 appeal; or (c) directly filing certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA on jurisdictional grounds where no plain, speedy and adequate remedy exists. The Court concluded that the imminence of deportation by virtue of an issued warrant justified petitioner’s direct resort to certiorari, thereby excusing strict exhaustion, but that this procedural justification did not supply a substantive basis for relief.

Standard for Certiorari and Burden of Proof

The Court reiterated the stringent standard for a writ of certiorari: the petitioner must prove that the respondent tribunal acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere error or ordinary abuse of discretion is insufficient. The Court emphasized that the exceptional remedy issues only where the tribunal acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or evaded a positive duty.

Substantive Review and Deference to BOI Findings

On the merits, the Court accorded deference to the BOI Board of Commissioners’ findings of fact and law given the agency’s specialized competence to determine violations of immigration laws. The Court found petitioner’s defenses to be largely self‑serving and unsupported by independent evidence; the alleged fixer who purportedly filled the drivers license form did not testify and petitioner supplied no corroboration. The Court observed that review by certiorari and subseq

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 180364)

Parties and Procedural Posture

TZE SUN WONG, Petitioner, is a Chinese citizen who immigrated to the Philippines in 1975 and acquired permanent resident status in 1982.
KENNY WONG, Respondent, filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Bureau of Immigration alleging misrepresentation in petitioner's drivers license application and presenting claims arising from bounced post-dated checks.
The Bureau of Immigration (BOI) Board of Commissioners ordered petitioner's deportation in a Judgment dated October 2, 2002, which was affirmed in a Resolution dated December 4, 2002.
The Acting Secretary of Justice affirmed the BOI ruling in a Resolution dated March 22, 2004, and the subsequent Secretary of Justice denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on September 9, 2005.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied the petition in a Decision dated May 15, 2007 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated October 23, 2007.
Petitioner elevated the case by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, which issued the dispositive ruling in this decision.

Key Factual Allegations

Respondent alleged that petitioner misrepresented his nationality as Filipino in a drivers license application and that petitioner and a business partner issued post-dated checks amounting to p886,922.00 which bounced.
Petitioner denied the misrepresentation and asserted that an unnamed third person completed the drivers license application and entered erroneous information for his name, birth year, and nationality.
The BOI took judicial notice that drivers license applications require the personal appearance of the applicant and found that someone else applying for petitioner implicated him in procuring a fraudulent drivers license.

Administrative Proceedings

A Complaint-Affidavit was filed with the BOI on September 12, 2000, and petitioner filed a Counter-Affidavit on September 28, 2000.
The Special Prosecutor found probable cause and filed deportation charges before the BOI, including a Charge Sheet dated February 14, 2002, docketed as D.C. No. ADD-02-983, and other records reflecting proceedings docketed as BSI-D.C. No. ADD-02-280.
The BOI issued a Mission Order to verify petitioner's immigration status, recalled the Mission Order, and ultimately referred the case to the Board of Special Inquiry for memoranda and further proceedings.

BOI Ruling

The BOI Board of Commissioners rendered a Judgment dated October 2, 2002 ordering deportation on the grounds of illegal use of the alias Joseph Wong and misrepresentation of Filipino citizenship in violation of Section 37 (a) (7) and (9) of Commonwealth Act No. 613 in relation to Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Republic Act No. 6085.
The BOI found that allowing another person to apply for a drivers license for petitioner implicated him in the preparation and issuance of a fraudulent document.
The October 2, 2002 Judgment was signed by Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo and Associate Commissioner Daniel C. Cueto and the BOI later denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration by a Resolution dated December 4, 2002 signed by four commissioners.

Secretary of Justice Ruling

Acting Secretary of Justice Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez affirmed the BOI Judgment in a Resolution dated March 22, 2004, holdi