Go Uan v. Commissioner of Immigration
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, former permanent residents of the Philippines, left for China in 1941 and failed to return before their reentry permits expired due to World War II. In 1948, they returned on temporary visitor's visas and were admitted as returning residents by the Board of Special Inquiry. Two years later, they were charged with overstaying as temporary visitors, and a deportation warrant was issued. The Supreme Court, in G.R. No. L-6017, upheld the deportation but mandated that petitioners depart voluntarily, procure proper visas, and undergo examination for admissibility. Procedural History: Petitioners complied with the Supreme Court's directive by departing for Taipei on February 20, 1960, and returning on March 11, 1960, documented as returning residents and admitted on primary inspection. Subsequently, deportation charges were filed against them under Section 37(a)(2) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, citing Section 29(a)(15) of the same Act (persons previously deported). The Board of Commissioners dismissed these charges, finding the institution of proceedings and admission in excess of jurisdiction. The Board of Special Inquiry recommended admission as returning residents by the exercise of the Commissioner's discretionary authority under Section 29(b)(1). However, the Commissioner of Immigration refused admission in an order dated December 8, 1960. The Petition: Petitioners filed a special civil action for prohibition with preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the exclusion order. The Court of First Instance of Manila issued the injunction and later set aside the exclusion order, finding that the Commissioner acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Commissioner appealed this decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Commissioner of Immigration gravely abused his discretion in not waiving the provisions of Section 29(a)(15) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, which excludes persons previously deported within one year prior to application for admission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction, and ordered the exclusion of the petitioners. The Court held that the Commissioner of Immigration did not gravely abuse his discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Commissioner of Immigration did not gravely abuse his discretion in refusing to waive the provisions of Section 29(a)(15) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. The Court first clarified that the recommendation of the Board of Special Inquiry was not binding on the Commissioner. Crucially, the Court reiterated that "discretion" is "a faculty conferred upon a court or other official by which he may decide a question either way and still is right," citing Asuncion vs. De Yriaite and Yao Yeng v. Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, in choosing not to waive the exclusion provision, the Commissioner could not inherently be wrong, much less have committed grave abuse of discretion, simply by exercising his statutory power. The Court extensively detailed petitioners' history of non-compliance, noting they remained in the Philippines for about five years and four months after the Supreme Court upheld their deportation in G.R. No. L-6017. This demonstrated a "little respect or regard" for lawful orders and a "high degree of contumacy." This contumacious behavior provided ample justification for the Commissioner's refusal to waive the operation of the aforementioned provision, indicating that his decision was not arbitrary or capricious, but based on a legitimate assessment of the petitioners' past actions and adherence to legal processes.
Main Doctrine
The Commissioner of Immigration did not gravely abuse his discretion in refusing to waive the exclusion provision for aliens previously deported, especially when the aliens demonstrated contumacy and disregard for lawful orders of authorities by remaining in the Philippines for an extended period after a deportation order was upheld by the Supreme Court.