SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 11043, March 08, 2017
LIANG FUJI, Complainant, v. ATTY. GEMMA ARMI M. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Failure to exercise utmost prudence in reviewing the immigration records of an alien, which resulted in the alien's wrongful detention, opens the special prosecutor in the Bureau of Immigration to administrative liability.
Before this Court is an administrative complaint1 dated November 23, 2015 filed by Liang Fuji (Fuji) and his family, against Bureau of Immigration Special Prosecutor Gemma Armi M. Dela Cruz (Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz) for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law in relation to her issuance of a Charge Sheet against Fuji for overstaying.
Through a letter2 dated December 8, 2015, Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant Atty. Ma. Cristina B. Layusa directed the complainants to file a verified complaint "with supporting documents duly authenticated and/or affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged"3 in the complaint.
Complainants replied4 by furnishing this Court with copies of the Verified Petition to Reopen S.D. O. No. BOC-2015-357 (B.L.O. No. SBM-15-420) and for Relief of Judgment with Urgent Prayer for Immediate Consideration, and Administrative Complaint (Verified Petition and Administrative Complaint),5 which Fuji filed with the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration, and prayed that the same be treated as their verified complaint. Complainants further informed this Court that they had difficulty obtaining certified true copies of the November 21, 2013 Order of the Board of Commissioners, which granted Fuji's Section 9(g) visa, Summary Deportation Order dated June 17, 2015, and Warrant of Deportation from the Bureau of Immigration personnel who just gave them the "run[-]around."6 They alleged that the Bureau of Immigration personnel were not particularly helpful, and did not treat Fuji's case with urgency.7
The facts of this case show that in a Summary Deportation Order8 dated June 17, 2015, Fuji, a Chinese national, was ordered deported for overstaying. From the Order, it appears that Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz was the special prosecutor who brought the formal charge against Fuji and another person upon her finding that Fuji's work visa had expired on May 8, 2013, with extension expired on December 6, 2013.9 Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz found that Fuji had overstayed for one (1) year and six (6) months in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 613, Section 37(a)(7).10 Her investigation was triggered by a complaint-affidavit dated April 30, 2015 of a certain Virgilio Manalo alleging that Fuji and another person had defrauded him.11
On June 29, 2015, Fuji filed his Motion for Reconsideration.12
On July 28, 2015, the Bureau of Immigration Intelligence Division served Fuji's Warrant of Deportation, and thereafter arrested him at Brgy. Maloma, San Felipe, Zambales with the assistance from local police.13 Fuji was brought to and detained at the Bureau of Immigration Detention Facility, National Capital Region Police Office, Taguig City.14
On October 9, 2015, the Board of Commissioners denied Fuji's Motion for Reconsideration.15
On November 23, 2015, Fuji filed his Verified Petition and Administrative Complaint.16 Subsequently, on March 10, 2016, Fuji filed an Omnibus Motion to Reopen and Lift S.D.O. BOC-2015-357, and Release on Bail through counsel.17
On March 22, 2016, the Board of Commissioners issued a Resolution dismissing the deportation charge against Fuji on the ground that "[t]he records show that Liang has a working visa valid until 30 April 2016 under Jiang Tuo Mining Philippines, Inc. as Marketing Liason."18 Fuji was directed to be released from Bureau of Immigration-Warden's Facility on March 23, 2016.19
In his administrative complaint, Fuji alleged that his rights to due process were violated since he was not afforded any hearing or summary deportation proceedings before the deportation order was issued against him.20 Fuji further alleged that Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz failed miserably in discharging her duties because a simple initial review of the Bureau of Immigration records would have revealed that he was not overstaying because his Section 9(g) work visa was valid until April 30, 2016.21
In her August 25, 2016 Comment,22 respondent Special Prosecutor Dela Cruz denied that she committed any grave misconduct.23 She claimed that Fuji was accorded due process during the summary deportation proceedings.24 He was directed, through an Order dated May 14, 2015 of the Legal Division, to submit his Counter-Affidavit/Memorandum, which he failed to do.25 Fuji was also able to file his motion for reconsideration and verified petition to reopen the case.26
Respondent further claimed that the Memorandum dated June 4, 2015 of the Bureau of Immigration - Management Information System (BI-MIS) constituted a substantial evidence of Fuji's overstay in the country, hence, her formal charge had legal basis.27
Respondent added that as a civil servant, she enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of her duties.28 She had no intention to violate any law and did not commit any flagrant disregard of the rules, or unlawfully used her station to procure some benefit for herself or for other persons.29 Respondent pointed out that the Ombudsman had in fact dismissed the complainant's charges against her.30 She added that Fuji stated in his March 29, 2016 Affidavit of Desistance that he had mistakenly signed some documents including the administrative complaint.31
We find respondent administratively liable for her negligence in her failure to ascertain the facts before levying the formal charge against Fuji for overstaying.
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.44
The Memorandum merely transmitted copies of immigration records showing details of filing of applications, such as official receipts, - and travel record of Fuji. It was respondent Dela Cruz who made the determination that Fuji overstayed on the basis of the'documents transmitted to her by the BI-MIS.
For :ATTY. GEMMA ARMI M. DELA CRUZ From :ACTING CHIEF, MIS DIVISION Re :REQUEST FOR IMMIGRATION STATUS; VISA EXTENSION PAYMENT, LATEST TRAVEL AND DEROGATORY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. MR./MS. LIANG FUJI 2. MR./MS. CHEN XIANG HE 3. MR./MS. JACKY CHANG HE Date :04 June 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further to your request for verification of Immigration Status; Visa Extension Payment and TRAVEL RECORD/S, please find the result/s as follows:
....
Result/s : 1. LIANG FUJI - Derogatory Record Not Found - Latest Travel Record Found (Please see the attached files for your ready reference. NOTE: DOB: 18 October 1991) - Immigration Status Found - Latest Payment Record Found in BI-Main (Please see the attached files for your ready reference. NOTE: DOB: 18 October 1991)48
....
Fuji's travel records as of June 4, 2015, show his arrival in the Philippines on February 10, 2014 under a work visa immigration status.50 Simple prudence dictates that respondent Atty. Dela Cruz should have verified whether or not the July 15, 2013 application for change of status had been approved by the Bureau of Immigration Commissioners, especially since she had complete and easy access to the immigration records.
Date & Time :4 June 2015 3:05 PM Verifier :DIMARUCOT J Database :TRAVEL - ARRIVAL
TRAVEL DATE TRAVEL TIME FLIGHT NO IMMIG STATUS PORT OFFIC3ER ACTION REMARKS10-FEBRUARY-2014 11:34PM CZ377 9G NAIA 1 MIJARES ALLOWED06-JANUARY-2012 11:51PM CZ377 9A NAIA 1 PARANGUE ALLOWED22-SEPTEMBER-2011 11:25PM CZ377 9A NAIA 1 NUNEZ ALLOWED49
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 1.
2 Id. at 3.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 5-6.
5 Id. at 8-12.
6 Id. at 5.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 13-14. The Summary Deportation Order was signed by the Board of Commissioners Chairperson Siegfred B. Mison, and Members Abdullah S. Mangotara, and Gilberto U. Repizo.
9 Id.
10 Com. Act No. 613, sec. 37 provides:
Section 37. (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:
....
(7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or condition under which he was admitted as a non-immigrant[.]
11 Id. at 13.
12 Id. at 26.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 32.
15 Id. at 26.
16 Id. at 8-12.
17 Id. at 57.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 27.
20 Id. at 9-10.
21 Id. at 9.
22 Id. at 25-31.
23 Id. at 29.
24 Id. at 27-28.
25 Id. at 28.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 29.
28 Id. at 31.
29 Id. at 30.
30 Id. at 31.
31 Id. at 31-32.
32Spouses Buffe v. Gonzalez, A.C. No. 8168, October 12, 2016 [Per Acting C.J. Carpio, Second Division]; Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, A.C. No. 7478, January 11, 2017 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
33 A.C. No. 8168, October 12, 2016 [Per Acting C.J. Carpio, Second Division].
34 Id. at 6-7.
35 Id. at 4.
36 A.C. No. 7478, January 11, 2017 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
37 Id. at 5.
38Rollo, pp. 53-54; Letter dated February 19, 2016 signed by Acting Director Julita M. Calderon of the Public Assistance Bureau and noted by Assistant Ombudsman Evelyn A. Baliton.
39Bernardino v. Santos, A.C. Nos. 10583 & 10584, February 18, 2015 13 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 248 Phil. 542 (1988) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
40Bernardino v. Santos, A.C. Nos. 10583 & 10584, February 18, 2015 13 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
41Ali v. Atty. Bubong, 493 Phil. 172, 184 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
42Bautista v. Atty. Bernabe, 517 Phil. 236, 241 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; De Vera v. Commissioner Pineda, 288 Phil. 318, 328 (1992) [Per J. Padilla, En Banc].
43 349 Phil. 7 (1998) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
44 Id. at 15.
45 Id. at 29.
46 Id. at 74-102.
47 Id. at 29.
48 Id. at 74.
49 Id. at 83.
50 Id.
51Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 271 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division] citing Lao Gi v. Court of Appeals, 259 Phil. 1247, 1254 (1989) [Per J. Gancayco, First Division].
52Facturan v. Barcelona, Jr., A.C. No. 11069, June 8, 2016, 4 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]; Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003, 448 Phil. 199, 207 (2003) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
53Lim-Santiago v. Sagucio, 520 Phil. 538, 551-552 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
54Atty. Salumbides v. Office of the Ombudsman, 633 Phil. 325, 339 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, En Banc].
55Ramos v. Imbang, 557 Phil. 507, 513 (2007) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
56Far Eastern Shipping Co. v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 703, 723 (1998) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc]; Rep. Act No. 6713 (1989) or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, sec.4.
57Uy v. Tansinsin, 610 Phil. 709, 716 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
58 CSC Res. No. 1101502 (2011) or the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule 10, sec. 46(D) provides:
Section 46. Classification of Offenses. - Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
....
D. The following less grave offenses are punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day suspension to six (6) months for the first offense; and dismissal from the service for the second offense:
1. Simple Neglect of Duty[.]
59See Layos v. Villanueva, A.C. No. 8085, December 1, 2014, 743 SCRA 334 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]; Penilla v. Alcid, Jr., 717 Phil. 210 (2013) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division]; Baldado v. Mejica, 706 Phil. 1 (2013) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division]; Vda. de Enriquez v. San Jose, 545 Phil. 379 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon, 337 Phil. 555 (1997) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].