ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 141294.February 20, 2002]
STO. DOMINGO vs. BID, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 20 2002.
����������� G.R. No. 141294(Jocelyn B. Sto. Domingo vs. Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, Commissioner Rufus B. Rodriguez, Col. Angelito Q. Tan, Col. Dave Umbao, Maj. Basilio Lucero.)
Assailed in the instant petition for review on certiorari is the Decision dated December 31, 1999 [1] cralaw of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46, [2] cralaw which denied the petition for habeas corpus filed by petitioner Jocelyn B. Sto. Domingo in behalf of Lee Yi-Chung, also known as Stiven Lee, a Taiwanese national.
Lee was arrested by Col. Dave Umbao, Maj. Basilio Lucero and two (2) other unidentified companions, operatives of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), shortly after his arrival at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport at around 6:30 p.m. on December 15, 1999. Lee was thereafter detained at the BID detention center at the Port Area, Manila. Petitioner admits that at the time of arrest, Lee had a pending deportation proceeding [3] cralaw before the BID but stresses that no final deportation order has been issued against him.
In their return of the writ, [4] cralaw respondents explained that on November 19, 1998, Lee filed a petition for bail pending determination of his deportation case. The Board of Commissioners granted the petition but on the condition that Lee's name shall be included in the Hold Departure List. Sometime in December 1998, Lee filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion [5] cralaw seeking permission to make a single trip to Taiwan. In an Order dated December 8, 1998, [6] cralaw BID granted the motion subject to certain conditions. [7] cralaw Subsequently, however, Lee left the Philippines on July 17 and 31, 1999, August 21, 1999, September 25, 1999, October 25, 1999 and December 8, 1999 without first applying for a departure order. Thus, in an Order dated December 10, 1999, [8] cralaw the Board of Commissioners directed the confiscation of Lee's bailbond and his re-arrest. Respondents contended that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies since petitioner could still ask for a reconsideration of the Order dated December 10, 1999, or file an appeal before the Department of Justice. Respondents maintained that Lee was not illegally detained and pointed out that Section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1940 empowered the Commissioner of Immigration to issue warrants of arrest.
In a Decision dated December 31, 1999, [9] cralaw the RTC denied the petition for habeas corpus for lack of merit. The RTC observed that petitioner was trying to question the discretion exercised by the Commissioner of Immigration in ordering the arrest of Lee. Accordingly, a petition for habeas corpus cannot be used to correct alleged errors of judgment.
On January 21, 2000, [10] cralaw petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. Petitioner maintains that the arrest of Lee was illegal. Petitioner reiterates that the BID can only arrest aliens pursuant to a final order of deportation, and that in the case of Lee, there was no such order at the time of his arrest.
However, it appears that on January 3, 2000, the BID issued a deportation order [11] cralaw against Lee for violation of Section 37(a)(7) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. [12] cralaw The BID took into consideration Lee's failure to secure prior departure orders and to report to the Intelligence Division of the BID every month. It was noted that Lee's visa expired on December 23, 1999 and that he failed to secure an extension thereof from proper authorities. Lee submitted himself to voluntary deportation and left Manila for Taipei, Taiwan on January 28, 2000. [13] cralaw
While arguing that the arrest of Lee was valid and that the BID had the authority to undertake his arrest, respondents pointed out that the petition has been mooted by the voluntary deportation of Lee.
The petition is denied.
The ultimate purpose of this petition for habeas corpus is to secure the release of Lee from the custody of the BID. Considering that a final order of deportation has been issued against Lee, and that, in fact, he has submitted himself to voluntary deportation, the petition is moot and academic. The Court is only called upon to act and decide lawsuits where there still remains an actual assertion of rights by one party against the other in a controversy wherein judicial intervention is unavoidable. Courts are not called upon to render mere advisory opinions. [14] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Annex "H" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 70-72.
[2] cralaw Presided by Judge Artemio S. Tipon.
[3] cralaw Docketed as D.O. No. BOC-RBR-99-108.
[4] cralaw Annex "E" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 46-49.
[5] cralaw The Order dated December 8, 1998 of the BID shows that joining Lee in filing said motion was a certain Lu Weng Kai, also known as Jack Lu.
[6] cralaw Annex "E" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 51.
[7] cralaw The conditions imposed were: (a) The names of Lee and Lu shall remain on the Hold-Departure List; and (b) The Order dated December 8, 1998 shall be valid for only twenty days reckoned from the date of actual departure.Lee and Lu were also warned that failure to return to the Philippines after the period given, without justifiable reason, shall warrant the inclusion of Lee and Lu's names on the Blacklist.
[8] cralaw Rollo, p. 52.
[9] cralaw Annex "H" of the Petition, Rollo pp. 70-72.
[10] cralaw On January 18, 2000, petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Under Rule 45, requesting an additional three (3) days from January 18, 2000 within which to file the intended petition.In a Resolution dated March 8, 2000, this Court granted the motion.
[11] cralaw Annex "I" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 73-74.
[12] cralaw �������� Section 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of another officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien.
����������������������� xxx������������������ xxx������������������ xxx
(7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or condition under which he was admitted as a nonimmigrant;
xxx������������������ xxx������������������ xxx
[13] cralaw Certification/Confirmation dated January 28, 2000, Rollo, p. 88.
[14] cralaw Bacolod-Murcia Planters' Association, Inc. v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., 30 SCRA 67, 68-69 (1969).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
