G.R. No. 180364, December 03, 2014
TZE SUN WONG, Petitioner, v. KENNY WONG, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals
Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 9. Jurisdiction. – The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
x x x x
(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
x x x x
The Rule expressly provides that it should be applied to appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. The phrase “among these agencies” confirms that the enumeration made in the Rule is not exclusive to the agencies therein listed.41
If petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, he can move for its reconsideration. If his motion is denied, then he can elevate his case by way of a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.43 (Emphasis supplied)
[S]ince the Commissioners of Immigration are under the Department of Justice46 and, in this case, they followed the Secretary’s Order setting aside the individual actions of the former Commissioners, the aggrieved parties should have exhausted their administrative remedies by appealing to the Secretary before seeking judicial intervention.47
Under Section 8, Chapter 3, Title I, Book III of Executive Order No. 292, the power to deport aliens is vested on the President of the Philippines, subject to the requirements of due process. The Immigration Commissioner is vested with authority to deport aliens under Section 37 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.49 Thus, a party aggrieved by a Deportation Order issued by the [Board of Commissioner (BOC)] is proscribed from assailing said Order in the RTC even via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Conformably with [the] ruling of the Court in [Commissioner] Domingo v. Scheer (see 466 Phil. 235, 264-284 2004), such party may file a motion for the reconsideration thereof before the BOC. The Court ruled therein that “there is no law or rule which provides that a Summary Deportation Order issued by the BOC in the exercise of its authority becomes final after one year from its issuance, or that the aggrieved party is barred from filing a motion for a reconsideration of any order or decision of the BOC.” The Court, likewise, declared that in deportation proceedings, the Rules of Court may be applied in a suppletory manner and that the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration of a decision or final order under Rule 37 of said Rules.
In case such motion for reconsideration is denied by the BOC, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Secretary of Justice and, if the latter denies the appeal, to the Office of the President of the Philippines [(OP)]. The party may also choose to file a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on the ground that the Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal, the remedy of appeal not being adequate and speedy remedy. In case the Secretary of Justice dismisses the appeal, the aggrieved party may resort to filing a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as amended.50
For a writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only prove that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. He must also show that he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against what he perceives to be a legitimate grievance. A recourse affording prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or tribunal is considered “plain, speedy and adequate” remedy.53
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Sec. 8. Decision of the Board. - The board of Commissioners, hereinafter referred to in this Act, shall be composed of the Commissioner of Immigration and the two Deputy Commissioners. In the absence of a member of the Board, the Department Head shall designate an officer or employee in the Bureau of Immigration to serve as a member thereof. In any case coming before the Board of Commissioners, the decision of any two members shall prevail.
The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.63
1Rollo, pp. 22-51.
2 Id. at 10-17. Penned by Associate Justice Lucenito N. Tagle with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo, concurring.
3 Id. at 19.
4 Id. at 11.
5 Id. at 127-128.
6 Id. at 69 and 170.
7 Id. at 152-153.
8 Id. at 11.
9 See Charge Sheet dated February 14, 2002, docketed as D.C. No. ADD-02-983 issued by Acting Special Prosecutor Antonio M. Carolino; id. at 163-164.
10 Id. at 170.
11 Pertaining to Mission Order No. ADD-02-157 dated April 17, 2002 (not attached to the records of this case).
12 See Order dated July 16, 2002. (See rollo, p. 165.)
13 Id. at 171.
14 Id. at 170-173. Signed by Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo and Associate Commissioner Daniel C. Cueto.
15 DEPORTATION OF ALIENS
(a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien:
x x x x
7. Any alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or condition under which he was admitted as a nonimmigrant;
x x x x
9. Any alien who commits any of the acts described in sections forty-five and forty-six of this Act, independent of criminal action which may be brought against him: Provided, That in the case of an alien who, for any reason, is convicted and sentenced to suffer both imprisonment and deportation, said alien shall first serve the entire period of his imprisonment before he is actually deported: Provided however, That the imprisonment may be waived by the Commissioner of Immigration with the consent of the Department Head, and upon payment by the alien concerned of such amount as the Commissioner may fix and approved by the Department Head;
x x x x
16 Entitled “An Act to Control and Regulate the Immigration of Aliens into the Philippines” (August 26, 1940).
17 Section 1. Section one of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty-two is hereby amended to read as follows:“Sec. 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was baptized for the first time, or, in case of an alien, with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court: Provided, That persons, whose births have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been baptized, have one year from the approval of this act within which to register their names in the civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames.”Section 2. Section Two of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty-two is hereby amended to read as follows:“Sec. 2. Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for authority therefor in proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of name, and no person shall be allowed to secure such judicial authority for more than one alias. The petition for an alias shall set forth the person's baptismal and family name and the name recorded in the civil registry, if different, his immigrant's name, if an alien, and his pseudonym, if he has such names other than his original or real name, specifying the reason or reasons for the use of the desired alias. The judicial authority for the use of alias the Christian name and the alien immigrant's name shall be recorded in the proper local civil registry, and no person shall use any name or names other, than his original or real name unless the same is or are duly recorded in the proper local civil registry.”Section 3. Section three of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred forty-two, is hereby amended to read as Follows:“Sec. 3. No person having been baptized with a name different from that with which he was registered at birth in the local civil registry, or in case of an alien, registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry, or any person who obtained judicial authority to use an alias, or who uses a pseudonym, shall represent himself in any public or private transaction or shall sign or execute any public or private document without stating or affixing his real or original name and all names or aliases or pseudonym he is or may have been authorized to use.”18 Entitled “AN ACT AMENDING COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES” (August 4, 1969).
19Rollo, p. 172.
20 Dated October 17, 2002. (Id. at 174-177.)
21 Id. at 189-190. Signed by Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo and Associate Commissioners Arthel B. Caronoñgan, Daniel C. Cueto, and Orlando V. Dizon.
22 Id. at 92-94.
23 Id. at 93.
24 Id. at 94.
25 See Motion for Reconsideration dated May 13, 2005; id. at 199-213.
26 Referring to Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo and Associate Commissioner Daniel C. Cueto.
27 Rollo, pp. 97-98.
28 Referring to Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo and Associate Commissioners Arthel B. Caronoñgan, Daniel C. Cueto and Orlando V. Dizon.
29Rollo, p. 98.
30 Dated January 5, 2005. (Id. at 65-91.)
31 Id. at 10-17.
32 See id. at 17.
33 Id. at 13.
34 Id. at 14.
35 Id. at 15-16.
36 See Motion for Reconsideration dated June 4, 2007; id at 299-316.
37 Id. at 19.
38 Entitled “An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes” (August 14, 1981).
39 Amended by RA 7902 entitled “An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, Amending for the Purpose Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, As Amended, Known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980” (March 18, 1995).
40 595 Phil. 56 (2008).
41 Id. at 71.
42 477 Phil. 891 (2004).
43 Id. at 901.
44 The doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies are subject to certain exceptions, to wit:“(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.” (Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R. No. 180388, January 18, 2011, 639 SCRA 772, 777, citing Rep. of the Phils. v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 97-98 ).45 210 Phil. 67 (1983).
46 See Chapter 10, Title III, Book IV, Executive Order No. (EO) 292.
47Caoile v. Vivo, supra note 45, at 82 citing Board of Commissioners v. Hon. Domingo, 118 Phil. 680, 684 (1963).
48 518 Phil. 501 (2006).
49 See also Section 10, Chapter 3, Title I, Book III, EO 292, which provides:Section 10. Power to Countermand Decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration. - The decision of the Board of Commissioners which has jurisdiction over all deportation cases shall become final and executory after thirty (30) days from promulgation, unless within such period the President shall order the contrary.50Kiani v. The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, supra note 48, at 515-516.
51 The OP is one of the quasi-judicial agencies specifically mentioned in Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
52 526 Phil 852 (2006).
53 Id. at 855.
54Bordomeo v. CA, G.R. No. 161596, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 269, 286.
55Francisco Motors Corp. v. CA, 535 Phil. 736, 748 (2006).
56 See dispositive portion of the October 2, 2002 Judgment of BOI Board of Commissioners; rollo, pp. 172-173.
57Bordomeo v. CA, supra note 54, at 289, citing Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No. 153852, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 410, 422-423.
58Dwikarna v. Hon. Domingo, supra note 42, at 901; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
59Guevarra v. People, G.R. No. 170462, February 5, 2014.
60Rollo, pp. 43-44.
61 Alcazar v. Arante, G.R. No. 177042, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 507, 517.
62 G.R. No. 160718, May 12, 2010, 620 SCRA 483.
63 Id. at 492.