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
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS<br /><br />102 Phil 953

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958.]

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY COMPANY, INC., CHENG BAN YEK & COMPANY, LTD., and CHUNG LIU, Respondents.

    Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Federico V. Sian for Petitioner.

    Diokno & Sison for respondents Cheng Ban Yek & Co., Ltd., and Chung Liu.

    De Santos & Herrera for respondent Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc.


    SYLLABUS


    1. ALIEN; DEPORTATION; POWER OF CHAIRMAN, DEPORTATION BOARD; CANCELLATION OR FORFEITURE OF BOND. — By the failure of the alien to appear before the Commissioner of Immigration and to report to him once a week as stipulate in the surety bond, the terms thereof were breached not only by the principal but also by the surety, which justified the forfeiture of the bond by the Commissioner of Immigration and by the Court.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REVOCATION OF ORDER OF DEPORTATION AFTER BREACH OF TERMS OF BOND.—The Chairman of the Deportation Board is not clothed with authority to release or cancel the bonds. The revocations of the order of deportation does not have the effect of setting aside or annulling the forfeiture of the bond ordered by the Commissioner or Immigration and by the Court of First Instance of Manila, because the terms of the surety bond had already been breached by the failure of the principal to appear at the Immigration Commission when required and to report to the Commissioner once a week as stipulated in the surety bond. The revelatory order of the President does not cancel or releases the principal and the surety from their recognizance or undertaking. A contrary view would encourage aliens and their sureties to take lightly, if not flout, their undertakings.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESCRIBE AND APPROVE TERMS AND AMOUNT OF BOND; NO AUTHORITY TO RELEASES PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. — Under the provisions of section 1, paragraph (c), Executive Order No. 398, dated 5 January 1951, 47 Off. Gaz. 6, the Chairman of the Deportation Board may prescribe and approve the amount and terms of the bond that may be filed by any respondent for his release but nowhere in the aforesaid executive order is he authorize to release the principal and the surety from a bond filed, especially after the terms thereof had been violated by both the principal and the surety.


    D E C I S I O N


    PADILLA, J.:


    Appeal by certiorari under Rule 46 by the Republic of the Philippines to set aside a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals which reversed that of the Court of First Instance of Manila, declaring forfeited the surety bond in the sum of P30,000 filed by the respondent Manila Surety & Fidelity Company, Inc. for the provisional release of Chung Kiat Kang whose deportation as an undesirable alien had been ordered by the President of the Republic.

    On 27 June 1947 the President ordered the deportation of Chung Kiat Kang as an undesirable alien. The latter moved for reconsideration of the deportation order, and pending action thereon he was allowed to be at liberty upon the filing of a surety bond, the pertinent parts of which will be mentioned in the course of this opinion. On 3 July 1947 the Manila Surety & Fidelity Company, Inc. filed the bond. The other two respondents are sureties of the counterbond. On 3 May 1949 the petition for reconsideration of the deportation order was denied. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Immigration required the alien to appear and report to him but he failed to do so. On 16 May 1949 the Commissioner declared the surety bond forfeited, of which forfeited the surety was notified the following day, and demanded from it the payment of the amount of the surety bond within 24 hours. The surety having failed to pay the amount of the bond as demanded by the Commissioner of Immigration, on 1 August 1949 a complaint was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the forfeiture of the surety bond. After trial, on 5 January 1952 the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment declaring forfeited the surety bond of P30,000 filed by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Company, Inc. for the provisional release of Chung Kiat Kang pending action on his petition for reconsideration of the deportation order, 6 per cent interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until paid, and costs; and ordering Cheng Ban Yek & Company, Ltd. and Chung Liu, the sureties of the counterbond, to pay the Manila Surety & Fidelity Company, Inc. any amount the latter shall have paid unto the Republic of the Philippines, 6 per cent interest thereon, 15 per cent on the amount as attorney’s fees, and costs. From that judgment all the defendants appealed.

    At the hearing in the Court of Appeals counsel for the appellants, the surety and the counter sureties, filed copies of official documents marked as Exhibits "1-Appeal" and "2-Appeal" for admission as additional evidence to show that the Chairman of the Deportation Board authorized the release and/or cancellation of the cash and surety bonds filed in behalf of Chung Kiat Kang by the Manila Surety & Fidelity Company, Inc. for his temporary release in connection with deportation case No. R-13. On the strength of the two exhibits, especially of Exhibit "2-Appeal", the Court of Appeals rendered judgment reversing that of the Court of First Instance, because it is of the opinion that the release and/or cancellation authorized by the Chairman of the Commission of Immigration is tantamount to a release of the surety bond filed in behalf of the alien.

    The petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred in —

    . . . stating that the counsel for the petitioner-appellant Republic of the Philippines made no objection when counsel for other respondent-appellees presented as additional evidence copies of official documents marked Exhibits "1-Appeal" and "2-Appeal."cralaw virtua1aw library

    . . . finding that the release of the cash and surety bonds of the principal Chung Kiat Kang in the instant case was authorized by the Chairman of the Commission of Immigration as shown, according to the respondent court, by Exhibit "2-Appeal."cralaw virtua1aw library

    . . . declaring "that the Commissioner of Immigration or his duly authorized representative, has the inherent discretionary power to discharge or lift the forfeiture which he himself declared of the surety bond which he himself required to be filed in a deportation case," because Exhibit "2-Appeal" was not signed by the Chairman of the Immigration Commission and that the surety bond was required by the President.

    . . . lifting the forfeiture of the surety bond of P30,000 in its entirety in the exercise of its inherent discretionary power, even after final judgment, and even when the principal was not produced before the Commissioner of Immigration and he did not voluntarily appear before the trial court of first instance of Manila.

    . . . holding that the revocation of the order of deportation, even if it was issued after the court had already assumed jurisdiction of the confiscation of the bond and in fact it had already declared said bond forfeited could still have the effect of remitting the said bond.

    Laying aside the question of whether the admission of Exhibits "1-Appeal" and "2-Appeal" was legally correct, the only question which requires determination by this Court is whether the Chairman of the Deportation Board was authorized to release or cancel the cash and surety bonds filed in behalf of the alien whose deportation had been ordered. By the failure of the alien to appear before the Commissioner of Immigration and to report to him once a week as stipulated in the surety bond, the terms thereof were breached not only by the principal but also by the surety, which justified the forfeiture of the bond by the Commissioner of Immigration and by the Court. The reversal of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila by the Court of Appeals is predicated upon a document signed by the Chairman of the Deportation Board, where after reciting that the order of deportation dated 27 June 1947 having been revoked by an order of the President dated 29 December 1953, and Chung Kiat Kang having been allowed to reside in the Philippines, the release and/or cancellation of the cash and surety bonds filed in his behalf with the Bureau of Immigration and the Deportation Board for his temporary release in connection with deportation case No. R-13 was authorized. This is a misapprehension. The Chairman of the Deportation Board is not clothed with authority to release or cancel the bonds. The revocation of the order of deportation does not have the effect of setting aside or annulling the forfeiture of the bond ordered by the Commissioner of Immigration and by the Court of First Instance of Manila, because the terms of the surety bond had already been breached by the failure of the principal to appear at the Immigration Commission when required and to report to the Commissioner once a week as stipulated in the surety bond. The revocatory order of the President does not cancel or release the principal and the surety from their recognizance or undertaking. A contrary view would encourage aliens and their sureties to take lightly, if not flout, their undertakings. The reversal of the judgment of the Court of First Instance being predicated upon a misapprehension, to wit: that the Chairman of the Deportation Board is authorized to release the principal and the surety from their undertaking, the same should be reversed. This conclusion is arrived at despite the provisions of section 1, paragraph (c), Executive Order No. 398, dated 5 January 1951, 47 Off. Gaz., 6, that —’

    Any respondent may file a bond with the Deportation Board in such amount and containing such conditions as the Chairman of the Board may approve and prescribe: Provided, however, That if at any stage of the proceedings it appears to the Board that there is strong evidence against the respondent or there is strong probability of his escaping or evading the proceedings of the Board, it may order his arrest and commitment.

    The Chairman of the Deportation Board may prescribe and approve the amount and terms of the bond that may be filed by any respondent for his release but nowhere in the aforesaid executive order is he authorized to release the principal and the surety from a bond filed, especially after the terms thereof had been violated by both the principal and the surety.

    The judgment under review is reversed and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered in the case is revived, with costs against the respondents except the Court of Appeals.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS<br /><br />102 Phil 953


    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