Go v. Bureau of Immigration
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In June 1999, a complaint was filed alleging that Carlos Go, Sr. was an undocumented alien who later adopted a Filipino name. His son, petitioner Jimmy T. Go, was also alleged to be an alien by extension. Subsequently, in April 2000, a deportation complaint was filed against petitioner Go, alleging he misrepresented himself as a Filipino citizen while being born to Chinese parents, in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 613, the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. Petitioner Go countered that his father, Carlos Go, Sr., elected Philippine citizenship, and that his own birth certificate listed his father as Filipino. Evidence presented included birth certificates indicating Chinese citizenship for petitioner Go and his siblings, while petitioner Go presented his father's Oath of Allegiance and Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship. Procedural History: The Bureau of Immigration (BI) initially dismissed the deportation complaint based on an NBI report finding Carlos Go, Sr.'s election of Philippine citizenship valid. However, the BI Board of Commissioners reversed this, deeming the election out of time and directing deportation charges against petitioner Go. A Charge Sheet was filed, and the Gos challenged this in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The BI Board subsequently ordered Go's apprehension and deportation. The RTC later dismissed the Gos' petition and denied their motion for reconsideration. This led to a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which was also dismissed. The Gos then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570). Separately, Go appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which affirmed the BI's decision, and then appealed to the CA via a Rule 43 petition. The Supreme Court, in a related case (Go, Sr. v. Ramos), affirmed the CA's decision regarding the RTC's dismissal. The CA, in the present case, dismissed Go's Rule 43 petition, holding the BI's decision had become final and executory. The Petition: This case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals' decision which affirmed as final and executory the Bureau of Immigration's deportation order. Petitioner Go argues that the April 17, 2002 BI Decision had not attained finality due to pending motions and that the CA erred in not ruling on the irregularity of the Office of the President's resolutions. The core of the petition revolves around the finality of the deportation order and, implicitly, the petitioner's claim to Filipino citizenship, which he asserts would preclude deportation. The Supreme Court, however, found that a second motion for reconsideration had been denied, rendering the BI decision final and executory, and that the issues of citizenship and the propriety of deportation proceedings had already been passed upon with finality in a previous related case, Go, Sr. v. Ramos.
Issue(s)
Whether the April 17, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BI) has attained finality. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing the petition for review. Whether the CA erred in not ruling on the alleged irregularity of the Office of the President's (OP) resolutions. Whether the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The October 28, 2009 Decision and March 22, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88840, which affirmed as final the April 17, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Immigration, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality of the April 17, 2002 BI Decision: The Court held that the petitioner's claim of the April 17, 2002 BI Decision not having attained finality due to a pending motion for reconsideration is mistaken. A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, and can only be entertained in extraordinary circumstances upon express leave of court. The records show that the petitioner's Motion for Leave to Attach a Second Motion for Reconsideration and the Second Motion for Reconsideration were denied and noted without action by the Court. Therefore, the CA correctly ruled that the April 17, 2002 BI Decision had already attained finality and should remain so, upholding the principle of immutability of judgment. This principle dictates that a definitive final judgment, however erroneous, is no longer subject to change or revision, as all litigations must necessarily come to an end to ensure the orderly administration of justice. On the CA's dismissal of the petition and ruling on the BI Decision: The Court found no cogent reason to overturn the CA's findings. The question of whether substantial evidence was presented to allow immediate recourse to regular courts is a question of fact, which is beyond the Supreme Court's power of review in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45, unless specific exceptions apply, none of which were shown here. The Bureau of Immigration is the agency best suited to determine violations of C.A. No. 613, and courts generally do not interfere with the sound discretion of administrative agencies entrusted with such matters. The Court reiterated its ruling in Go, Sr. v. Ramos, which involved identical facts and evidence, holding that the BI's jurisdiction is not divested by a mere claim of citizenship and that factual issues regarding citizenship must first be resolved by the BI. On the alleged irregularity of the OP's resolutions: The Court noted that the petitioner had already pursued various remedies, including an appeal to the OP after filing a petition before the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and that factual issues making the petitioner's citizenship controversial must first be resolved by the BI, not the Supreme Court. The Court also pointed out that the subject matters of Go, Sr. and the present case are essentially the same, and thus, the present case should be disposed of in the same manner as Go, Sr., which sustained the finality of the BI Decision. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court declared that the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping. The petitioner repetitively availed of judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, founded on the same transactions and essential facts, raising substantially the same issues. Specifically, the petitioner challenged the April 17, 2002 BI Decision in multiple forums, including the RTC, CA, OP, and this Court, through various modes of appeal and petitions, demonstrating an identity of parties, rights asserted, relief prayed for, and the potential for res judicata. This conduct violates the principle against multiplicity of suits and the efficient administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and can only be entertained in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership, and only before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court's declaration. The principle of immutability of judgment dictates that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, precluding modification even if meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, absent specific exceptions.