Vivo v. Cloribel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents, Chinese citizens, arrived in the Philippines as temporary visitors and obtained extensions of stay. In February 1962, they sought to invest in the Philippines, a request endorsed by the Acting Commissioner of Immigration in line with the government's socio-economic policy. However, their requests for further extensions as temporary visitors were denied. On August 29, 1962, the Commissioner of Immigration issued Circular No. 101 terminating the authorized stay of bonded alien temporary visitors who arrived in 1961 and prior years, requiring them to leave by September 19, 1962. Procedural History: The aliens filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Circular No. 101, alleging abuse of discretion by the Commissioner. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila issued a preliminary injunction and later ruled that the aliens were special non-immigrants under Section 47(a)(2) of the Immigration Act of 1940, ordering the Commissioner to register them as such and allowing them to operate their businesses until December 31, 1967. Upon appeal (G.R. No. L-22354), the Supreme Court reversed the CFI decision, declaring the aliens without right to stay or be considered special non-immigrants and ordering their departure, along with the return of extension fees. The injunction was dissolved. The Petition: After the Supreme Court decision became final and executory, the aliens failed to leave. Instead, they requested the Commissioner to allow them the use of their rights to a valid extended stay until the termination of President Macapagal's Socio-Economic Program. This was denied. The aliens filed another petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 63135) in the CFI of Manila, praying to be allowed to pay monthly extension fees and for the Commissioner to schedule their departure not earlier than the period contemplated in the socio-economic program. The respondent Judge gave due course and issued an order directing the Commissioner to desist from the acts complained of. The present petition seeks to annul this order. Subsequently, the private respondents filed a motion to withdraw their petition in Civil Case No. 63135, citing a Supreme Court resolution that remanded G.R. No. L-22354 and affected the cause of action of their petition. The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss the present petition, but noted the withdrawal of the lower court case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a restraining order against the Commissioner of Immigration after a final Supreme Court decision had already ordered the aliens' departure. Whether the current petition has become moot and academic due to the private respondents' withdrawal of the underlying case in the lower court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, without costs, with the pronouncement that the decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-22354 be immediately and fully implemented. Costs against private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court determined that the respondents' attempt to use a new petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance was a transparent maneuver to avoid the finality of the decision in G.R. No. L-22354. In that previous case, the Supreme Court had already declared that the aliens possessed no right to stay in the Philippines and that the Commissioner of Immigration had the legal authority to order their departure. The lower court's issuance of a restraining order was an illegal obstruction of a final mandate from the highest court of the land. Lower courts do not have the power to interfere with or stay the execution of Supreme Court decisions, which are final and bind all lower tribunals. Such attempts to re-litigate settled issues under the guise of new petitions constitute an abuse of judicial process. Therefore, the order issued by Judge Cloribel was improper from its inception as it sought to override a final Supreme Court ruling. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the case had become moot and academic because the private respondents themselves moved to withdraw their petition in Civil Case No. 63135. This withdrawal was prompted by a Supreme Court resolution that remanded the original case (G.R. No. L-22354), which the respondents admitted left their current mandamus petition without any supporting cause of action. Because the respondents voluntarily discontinued the action that gave rise to the contested order, there was no longer a live controversy for the Supreme Court to adjudicate. However, the Court emphasized that this dismissal does not leave the status of the aliens in limbo. To ensure the integrity of the judicial system and immigration laws, the Court explicitly ordered that its prior decision in G.R. No. L-22354, which mandated the aliens' departure, must be fully and immediately implemented. This prevents the respondents from profiting from the delay caused by their mooted litigation.
Main Doctrine
A case becomes moot and academic when the issues raised have been rendered moot by subsequent events, such as the withdrawal of the petition in the lower court, even if a preliminary injunction was issued by the Supreme Court.