ISSUE:
G.R.
No. L-25442 June 29, 1968
HON.
MARTINIANO P. VIVO, as Commissioner of Immigration, petitioner,
vs.
HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the CFI of Manila, TSOI SAU CHUN, CHUA LE GUAT and her minor children ANG KIE LIM AND FEI CHING and ANG CHAK CHI, LAM PEK YUK, KWOK KAM LIEN and her minor children YU KIAN TIOK and YU LILY; SY SIOK HIAN and her minor children ONG LAI YUEN, ONG ANG KIAM and WONG LAI SHU; and TSAI BUN and her minor child NG KAM YUK, respondents.
vs.
HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the CFI of Manila, TSOI SAU CHUN, CHUA LE GUAT and her minor children ANG KIE LIM AND FEI CHING and ANG CHAK CHI, LAM PEK YUK, KWOK KAM LIEN and her minor children YU KIAN TIOK and YU LILY; SY SIOK HIAN and her minor children ONG LAI YUEN, ONG ANG KIAM and WONG LAI SHU; and TSAI BUN and her minor child NG KAM YUK, respondents.
This
case is an offshoot of G.R. No. L-22354, decided by this Court on March 31,
1965.
It
will be recalled that the herein private respondents are Chinese citizens who,
on various dates, arrived in the Philippines as temporary visitors, and
succeeded in securing several extensions of their stay in this country.
On
or about February, 1962, allegedly upon solicitation of the then Macapagal
administration for foreign capital, five of these respondents requested the
President of the Philippines to be allowed to invest some money in the
Philippines. The request was indorsed by the then Acting Commissioner of
Immigration who suggested favorable action thereon, in line with the
socio-economic policy of the Government. While their requests were pending, the
said aliens sought further extensions of their stay as temporary visitors but
these were denied by the President; portion of the letter of denial reads thus:
As to your request for presidential sanction
on the desire of said aliens to make investments in the Philippines and for
guidance on the procedure to be followed in the implementation of their
investment projects, it is suggested that the matter be taken up directly with
the Chairman of the National Economic Council and the Secretary of Commerce and
Industry who may thereafter make the necessary recommendation to this Office.
On
August 29, 1962, the Commissioner of Immigration issued Circular No. 101
providing that the authorized stay of all "bonded alien temporary visitors
who arrived in the Philippines in 1961 and prior years are hereby terminated,
and requests for extension of such periods will not be entertained and that all
said aliens should leave not later than September 19, 1962, if their prior
authorized stay expires later than September 19, 1962, and those having dates of
expiry before said date should leave on the corresponding expiry dates."
Alleging
that the Commissioner of Immigration acted with abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of and/or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the said circular, the
aliens filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for
prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction against the enforcement of
said circular. The lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction against
the Commissioner and granted the prayer to allow the said aliens to deposit
with the court their extension fees.
After
a protracted trial, the lower court rendered judgment, thus:
... This court is of the opinion that the
public interest that is warranted in the exercise of the provisions of this
Section 47 (a) 2 is clearly the official government invitation of foreign
capital mentioned prominently in the said presidential directive of July 31st
and August 17th as the basis of the authority granted the herein petitioners
allowing them to invest in the Philippines. And the covering law of their
immigration status is Section 47 (a) 2 already aforestated legally vesting the
petitioners with the status of special non-immigrant under the said covering
law. The Immigration Circular No. V-101 is inapplicable to the instant case of
the petitioners inasmuch as said circular seeks application on temporary
visitors and aliens other than those covered by the exercise of the provisions
of Section 47 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 and Petitioners are
held by this Court to be under the provisions of Section 47.
The
Commissioner of Immigration was by that decision ordered to register the aliens
as special non-immigrants under Section 47(a) 2 of the Immigration Act of 1940,
in lieu of their recorded non-immigrant status; to authorize them to continue
operating their business establishment until December 31, 1967, and to
liquidate their business investments, repatriate their capital and depart for
their country of origin on or before said date; and making permanent the writ
of preliminary injunction theretofore issued.
Upon
appeal here (said G.R. No. L-22354) the CFI decision was reversed, this Court
declaring:
... the appellees without right to stay in
the Philippines and/or to be considered special non-immigrants; the respondent
Commissioner of Immigration with power and authority to order their departure.
It is further ordered that appellees return the amount of P1,700.00 to the
government and of P10.00 per month extension fees, from the time they began
staying in the Philippines, over and beyond the period authorized by the
Commissioner of Immigration until they leave. The injunction by the lower court
having been issued illegally and improvidently, should be as it is hereby,
dissolved. Costs against appellees.
The
aliens failed to leave the country upon finality of the decision. Instead, on
October 11, 1965, they wrote the Commissioner of Immigration requesting that
they be allowed the "use and enjoyment of their rights to a valid and
lawful extended stay decreed in their favor by the Supreme Court of the
Philippines in its decision in Case No. G.R. L-22354, at least temporarily
until they leave and depart for their country of origin not earlier than the
termination of President Macapagal's Socio Economic Program."
This
request was denied by the Commissioner of Immigration and so the aliens filed
again with the Court of First Instance of Manila, a petition for mandamus with
preliminary injunction praying for judgment ordering the respondent to accept
and receipt for all monthly payments of P10.00 per person extension fees; and
ordering the respondent Commissioner to schedule the departure of the aliens
not earlier than the period contemplated in the socio-economic program of the
President (Civil Case No. 63135).
On
October 29, 1965, the herein respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance
gave due course to the petition and issued an order directing the Commissioner
of Immigration "to desist from executing the acts complained of."
This
petition seeks to annul the said order of October 29, 1965.
Requiring
the herein respondents to answer the petition, this Court, at the commencement
of these proceedings on December 23, 1965, issued a writ of preliminary
injunction, restraining the respondent Judge, in the meanwhile, from enforcing
the order dated October 29, 1965, and from
otherwise taking cognizance of and assuming jurisdiction over Civil Case No.
63135.
On
January 3, 1966, counsel for herein private respondents filed with this Court a
manifestation praying that the case be dismissed for lack of cause of action,
attaching thereto a true copy of a "Motion to Withdraw Petition" in
Civil Case No. 63135, filed by said respondents in the Court below, pertinent
portions of which read:
1) That by virtue of a Supreme Court resolution
dated December 14, 1965, copy attached as ANNEX "A" hereof received
by petitioners on December 24, 1965, thru ordinary mail, and issued in Case No.
G. R. L-22354 (Kwok Kam Lien, et al. vs. The Hon. M. P. Vivo, etc.) the Supreme
Court has just remanded to this very court the said Case No. G. R. L-22354;
2) That meanwhile, when this case was filed
with this Honorable Court on October 28, 1965; it was after respondent
Commissioner of Immigration sought to arrest your petitioners on October 22,
1965, two (2) days after the reglementary period expired since petitioners
received the denial of their last motion to reconsider the Supreme Court
decision in said Case No. L-22354 which denial was received by petitioners on
September 25, 1965, such that the cause of action of your petitioners in this
case was based primarily on the Supreme court decision having become final and
executory on October 20, 1965;
3) That the aforestated resolution of the
Supreme Court dated December 14, 1965, was in virtue of a separate motion for reconsideration NG HUI CHING,
which in effect further extended the reglementary period without the knowledge
of herein petitioners;
4) That in view of the said resolution of the
Supreme Court dated December 14, 1965, the instant petition with this Honorable
Court in the above-entitled case is now left without support on its cause of
action and therefore your petitioners has no other alternative than to withdraw
their petition in this case.
In
the meanwhile, this Court denied the prayer for dismissal of the petition. The
Solicitor General then filed his memorandum for the petitioner. In their reply
memorandum, respondents reiterate their prayer for dismissal of the case,
calling our attention to the fact that the Solicitor General, while having
discussed the issues raised, has forgotten to make mention of the above-quoted
manifestation filed by respondents.
The
respondent judge was served with the writ of preliminary injunction, issued by
this Court, a day before respondents' withdrawal motion in Civil Case No.
63135. Said injunction having restrained him from further taking cognizance of
the case, the Judge could not issue any order of dismissal pursuant to the
motion, although from the facts above narrated, the discontinuance of Civil
Case No. 63135 will not possibly yield any disadvantage or prejudice upon the
Government. The respondent Judge should thus grant the respondent's motion to
withdraw and thereby dissolve the restraining order issued therein on October
29, 1965.
Upon
the foregoing considerations, and by virtue of the withdrawal of said Civil
Case No. 63135 in the court below, this case has become moot and academic.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is hereby dismissed, without costs, with the pronouncement,
however, that the decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-22354 be immediately and
fully implemented. Costs against private respondents.
Concepcion,
C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Fernando,
JJ., concur.
Thanks Keen!
TumugonBurahin