Go Yu Tak Wai v. Vivo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Go Yu Tak Wai, a Chinese national born in 1903, arrived in Manila on November 8, 1961, presenting a passport from the Republic of China and a Philippine non-quota visa. She claimed to be a returning resident, having first arrived in the Philippines in 1930 with her late husband, Jose Go, a permanent resident. They left for China in 1941, and Jose Go died in Amoy in 1948. Due to the war and communist occupation of China, Go Yu Tak Wai was unable to return earlier. She was corroborated by a Chinese resident who allegedly managed her husband's store and a Filipino who allegedly prepared their travel papers. Procedural History: A Board of Special Inquiry investigated her application and, on March 27, 1962, found that she had satisfactorily proven her right to admission as a returning resident despite a twenty-year absence and lack of a reentry permit. On March 11, 1963, within the one-year period from the promulgation of the Board of Special Inquiry's decision, the Commissioners of Immigration (Martiniano P. Vivo, Virgilio N. Gaston, and Marcial O. Ranola) reviewed the case motu proprio and voted to exclude Go Yu Tak Wai. Their resolution to exclude was recorded in the minutes of their meeting on March 11, 1963. However, the Commissioners' detailed decision, reversing the Board of Special Inquiry's ruling, was not immediately promulgated. This written decision, dated March 11, 1963, was received by Go Yu Tak Wai on August 28, 1963. The draft of this decision was typed on August 13, 1963, and circulated among the Commissioners between August 13 and August 26, 1963, before being sent to the Records Section. A duplicate original of the decision, with a transmittal letter also dated March 11, 1963, was mailed on August 27, 1963. The Petition: Go Yu Tak Wai filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on September 3, 1963, in the Court of First Instance of Manila, arguing that the Commissioners' decision excluding her was void because it was promulgated after the expiration of the statutory one-year period for review. The lower court sustained her petition, holding the Commissioners' decision void. The Commissioners appealed this judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioners' decision to exclude Go Yu Tak Wai was void for being promulgated after the expiration of the statutory one-year period for review, considering that the resolution to exclude was adopted within the period but the detailed written decision was promulgated later. Whether the operative date of the Commissioners' action, for purposes of the one-year review period, is the date of the vote and adoption of the resolution or the date of the promulgation of the detailed written decision; and the effect of a lack of a sufficient majority vote for reversal on the trial court's decision.
Ruling
The Supreme Court, by a divided vote (six justices voting for reversal, and five dissenting), affirmed the trial court's decision. The Court found that the trial court erred in holding that the Commissioners' written decision should have been signed and promulgated within one year from the promulgation of the Board of Special Inquiry's decision. However, due to the lack of the necessary votes to reverse the trial court's decision, the same was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the operative date of the Commissioners' action for the one-year review period: The Court held that the operative date is when the resolution of exclusion was voted and adopted by the Commissioners as a Board, regardless of when the decision in extenso was prepared, written, and signed. This is because the detailed decision must relate back to the day the resolution to exclude was adopted. The Court cited previous rulings in Arocha vs. Vivo, Vivo vs. Area, and Neria vs. Commissioner of Immigration to support this principle. Therefore, the Commissioners were justified in using March 11, 1963, as the date of their decision, even though it was drafted and promulgated later, as long as the review and deliberation occurred within the one-year period. The Court emphasized that Section 27(b) of the Immigration Act does not impose the same strict promulgation requirement for the Commissioners' motu proprio review decisions as it does for the Board of Special Inquiry's decisions or for decisions on appeal. On the alleged lack of jurisdiction due to late promulgation and the effect of the vote: The Court found that the Commissioners' review was effected within the one-year period. The thrust of Go Yu Tak Wai's petition was the alleged lack of power to review after the expiration of the one-year period. Since the review was timely, the trial court's decision, which was based on the premise of a late review, should be reversed. However, the Court noted that only six justices voted for reversal, which was insufficient to overturn the trial court's decision. Consequently, the trial court's decision was affirmed, not on its merits, but due to the lack of the required majority vote for reversal.
Main Doctrine
The operative date of the Commissioners' action in reviewing a Board of Special Inquiry decision motu proprio is the date when the resolution of exclusion was voted and adopted by them as a Board, regardless of the date when the decision in extenso was prepared, written, and signed, provided the review and deliberation occurred within the statutory one-year period.