ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7065 April 13, 1955 - TEOFILA S. TIBON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    096 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-7784 April 13, 1955 - NICOLAS ADANTE v. CANDIDO DAGPIN

    096 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-7904 April 14, 1955 - EDUARDO HILVANO v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ

    096 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. L-7851 April 15, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HONORABLE JOSE P. VELUZ

    096 Phil 794

  • G.R. No. L-8183 April 15, 1955 - VICTOR DE LA CRUZ v. HONORABLE AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    096 Phil 797

  • G.R. No. L-8316 April 15, 1955 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. THE HONORABLE CESAREO DE LEON

    096 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-7094 April 16, 1955 - JUANITA MIRANDA v. HON. JUDGE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    096 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-7791 April 19, 1955 - LEE TAY & LEE CHAY v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS

    096 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-6871 April 20, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANDALI TAGACAOLO

    096 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. L-7301 April 20, 1955 - TIU SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

    096 Phil 817

  • G.R. No. L-7318 April 20, 1955 - HELEN GENIO DE CHAVEZ v. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO.

    096 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. L-6508 April 25, 1955 - KOPPEL (PHIL) INC. v. EL TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    096 Phil 830

  • G.R. No. L-7076 April 28, 1955 - ROSARIO and UNTALAN v. CARANDANG ET AL.

    096 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6469 April 29, 1955 - NAVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL and COURT OF APPEALS

    096 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-6740 April 29, 1955 - DIMAYUGA v. DIMAYUGA

    096 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955 - NAZARIO TRILLANA v. FAUSTINO MANANSALA

    096 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6972 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO SATURNINO

    096 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. L-7054 April 29, 1955 - UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    096 Phil 871

  • G.R. No. L-7541 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. LACSON ET AL.

    096 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-7550 April 29, 1955 - DONALD A. ROCCO v. MORTON MEADS

    096 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-7623 April 29, 1955 - FELICIDAD CASTAÑEDA v. BRUNA PESTAÑO

    096 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-7692 April 29, 1955 - PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST CO., v. HONORABLE RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    096 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-8107 April 29, 1955 - VISAYAN SURETY & INS. CORP. v. HON. DE AQUINO ET AL.

    096 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-8348 April 29, 1955 - BAGTAS v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    096 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6931 April 30, 1955 - STANDARD-VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. M. D. ANTIGUA

    096 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. Po GIOK TO

    096 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7296 April 30, 1955 - PLASLU v. PORTLAND CEMENT CO., ET AL.

    096 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-7390 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYES, ET AL.

    096 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-7561 April 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC, ET AL.

    096 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-7680 April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD

    096 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-7830 Abril 30, 1955 - MANZA v. HON. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    096 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-8017 April 30, 1955 - MANSAL v. P. P. GOCHECO LUMBER CO.

    096 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-8278 April 30, 1955 - SUMAIL v. HON. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF COTABATO, ET AL

    096 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-8332 April 30, 1955 - JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ v. FRANCISCO A. ARELLANO

    096 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. L-8909 Abril 30, 1955 - JOSE LAANAN v. EL ALCAIDE PROVINCIAL DE RIZAL

    096 Phil 959

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-7680   April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD<br /><br />096 Phil 934

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-7680. April 30, 1955.]

    TAN TONG alias CHEOÑGA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE DEPORTATION BOARD, Respondent-Appellee.

    Borromeo, Yap & Borromeo, Jovenal R. Fernandez, Esteban T. Gochan and De la Cruz & De la Cruz, for Appellant.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres, for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. ALIENS, DEPORTATION OF; POWER TO DEPORT ALIENS IS LODGED IN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE; LIMITATION TO POWER. — The power to deport aliens is lodged in the President of the Republic of the Philippines. As an act of State, it is vested in the Executive by virtue of his office, subject only to the regulations prescribed in section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code or to such future legislation as may be promulgated on the subject. (In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil., 41.)

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SECTION 69 OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PRESCRIBES PROCEDURE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF POWER. — Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code does not define the cases in which the Chief Executive may exercise his power to deport; neither does it limit or curtail said power. What it does is to prescribe the procedure necessary for the exercise of the power that the alien may have his "day in court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    3. ID.; ID.; SECTION 2702 OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CONSTRUED; POWER OF THE DEPORTATION BOARD TO INVESTIGATE ILLEGAL IMPORTATION AND RECOMMEND DEPORTATION EVEN WITHOUT PREVIOUS COURT CONVICTIONS. — Section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code punishes illegal importation and imposes, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the liability to deportation if the person found guilty is an alien. Its sole import is that if a complaint court has found an alien guilty of a violation of the section, the proceedings outlined in Section 69 are no longer necessary for deportation. Beyond this it is unreasonable, if not absurd, to presume that the legislature intended that if there is no conviction for a crime of unlawful importation, or if no charges have been filed against an alien therefor, the Deportation Board may not proceed to investigate said charges against him and recommend deportation. The reason for the provision (section 2702) is that if a competent court has found the alien guilty of a violation of the law, It is no longer necessary that the proceedings outlined in section 69 be resorted to before his deportation may be ordered by the Chief Executive for that would be a mere duplicity.


    D E C I S I O N


    LABRADOR, J.:


    This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu denying a petition for a writ of prohibition against the Deportation Board. Petitioner Tan Tong was originally charged before the Bureau of Immigration with being a communist, subject to deportation. The Board of Commissioners found that Tan Tong was engaged in communistic activities and in smuggling, and so it recommended that Tan Tong be deported to China and that his activities related to smuggling be referred to the Office of the President for action under the provisions of section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. The order is dated October 6, 1762. On November 7, 1752, special prosecutor Emilio L. Galang charged Tan Tong before the Deportation Board with affiliation with the communist party and with having fraudulently engaged in unlawful importation of merchandise, especially American cigarettes. Tan Tong filed a motion to quash the proceedings before the Board, first, on the ground that said charges had already been investigated by the Bureau of Immigration, and second, that insofar as the charge of smuggling is concerned, the proceedings are beyond the Board’s jurisdiction, because no deportation proceedings for smuggling can be instituted before his conviction by a competent court (in accordance with section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code). The motion to quash was denied and thereupon Tan Tong instituted this action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, alleging that the respondent Deportation Board has no jurisdiction to consider the charges which had been or were being investigated by the Bureau of Immigration, and because it lacks jurisdiction to consider the charges of smuggling in accordance with the provisions of section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code. The petition having been denied Tan Tong appealed to this Court, wherein he makes and limits himself to the following assignment of error:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That the trial court erred in ruling that respondent board can subject the petitioner to deportation for unlawful importation even without a preceding court conviction for said offense.

    The gist of appellant’s contention is contained in the following paragraph of his brief:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In view of the wordings of section 2702, it is obvious that our lawmaking body has expressly imposed the requisites and conditions wherein the power to deport in case of unlawful importation is to be exercised and from its clear context Congress has prescribed that in this particular case, conviction of an alien for said offense must first be had and only thereafter may the power to deport be exercised."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The fallacy of appellant’s argument is based on the failure to distinguish between the power to deport and the proceedings necessary for the exercise of said power. The power to deport aliens is lodged in the President of the Republic of the Philippines. As an act of state, it is vested in the Executive by virtue of his office, subject only to the regulations prescribed in section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code or to such future legislation as may be promulgated on the subject. (In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil., 41.) There is no provision in the Constitution nor act of the legislature defining the power, as it is evident that it is the intention of the law to grant to the Chief Executive full discretion to determine whether an alien’s residence in the country is so undesirable as to affect or injure the security, welfare or interest of the state. The adjudication of facts upon which deportation is predicated also devolves on the Chief Executive whose decision is final and executory. (In Re McCulloch Dick, supra.) The only provision of law heretofore enacted by the legislature on deportation is section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 69. Deportation of subject to foreign power. — A subject of a foreign power residing in the Philippines shall not be deported, expelled, or excluded from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the President of the Philippines except upon prior investigation, conducted by said Executive or his authorized agent, of the ground upon which such action is contemplated. In such case the person concerned shall be informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than three days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be heard by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine the opposing witnesses."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The above provision does not define the cases in which the Chief Executive may exercise his power to deport; neither does it limit or curtail said power. What it does is to prescribe the procedure necessary for the exercise of the power that the alien may have his "day in court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    By no form or manner of reasoning can the inference be made that by section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code the Legislature intended that an alien can be deported for illegal importation only upon conviction therefor in a competent court, and thereby deprived the Deportation Board of its power to investigate charges of unlawful importation of merchandise against an alien, especially, when as appears from the record, no criminal action for unlawful importation has been filed against him. The language of the provision and the chapter in which it is found do not justify petitioner’s contention. No derogation of a power vested in the Chief Executive or a limitation thereof can be presumed by implication from the mere addition of the clause "he may be subject to deportation" at the end of section 2702. This section punishes illegal importation and imposes, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the liability to deportation if the person found guilty is an alien. Its sole import is that if a competent court has found an alien guilty of a violation of section 2702 of the Revised Administrative Code, the proceedings outlined in section 69 of the said Code are no longer necessary for deportation. Beyond this it is unreasonable, if not absurd, to presume that the legislature intended more. It could not have intended that if there is no conviction for a crime of unlawful importation, or if no charges have been filed against an alien therefor, the Deportation Board may not proceed to investigate said charges against him and recommend deportation. The reason for the provision (Sec. 2702) is that if a competent court has found the alien guilty of a violation of the law, it is no longer necessary that the proceedings outlined in section 69 be resorted to before his deportation may be ordered by the Chief Executive for that would be a mere duplicity.

    The appeal should be, as it is hereby, dismissed and the decision appealed from affirmed, with costs against the Petitioner-Appellant.

    Pablo, Acting C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-7680   April 30, 1955 - TAN TONG v. DEPORTATION BOARD<br /><br />096 Phil 934


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED