Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS

Manila

FOURTEENTH DIVISION
JOSE LIM ROBREDO and JESSE M. ROBREDO, Petitioners, versus ORLANDO TAN, Respondent. CA-G.R. SP No. 101821 Members: GUARIA III, M.L.,Chairman, LIBREA-LEAGOGO, C.C.,and * ROSARIO R.R., JJ. Promulgated:

22 JULY 2008

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
LIBREA-LEAGOGO, C.C., J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review (With Prayer for the Issuance of A Temporary Restraining Order)1 under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision2 dated 06 August 2007 of the Office of the President in the case entitled Orlando P. Tan v. Jose Lim Robredo and Jesse M. Robredo docketed as O.P. Case No. 07-F-199, the dispositive portion of which reads:
*

Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 200-08-CMV dated 25 June 2008

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The May 10, 2007 Resolution of Justice Undersecretary Ernesto L. Pineda is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration is hereby directed to take immediate action for the reconstitution of the records of the instant case and thereafter, refer the same to the Board of Special Inquiry for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.

and the Resolution3 dated 04 December 2007 denying the Motion for Reconsideration with finality. Respondent filed his Comment4 dated 02 June 2008. Petitioners also filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion to Reiterate Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)5 dated 27 June 2008. Per JRD report6 dated 01 July 2008, no reply to Comment was filed, as per docket book entry. Thus, in a Resolution7 dated 04 July 2008, respondents' Comment and petitioners' Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion was both noted, and the Petition, with prayer for temporary restraining order, was submitted for resolution/decision.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
Based on certain documents/pleadings submitted by the parties in the instant Petition, the following antecedents appear: A Complaint8 dated 16 December 1991 was filed by complainant (herein respondent) Orlando P. Tan (Tan, for brevity) against respondents (herein petitioners) Jose Lim Robredo alias Jose Chan Robredo (Jose, for brevity) and Jesse M. Robredo (Jesse, for brevity) for Compulsory Registration as Chinese Nationals and Deportation filed before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. It was alleged, inter alia, that: the parents of Jose were both

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

Chinese and residents of mainland China, they came to the Philippines before the outbreak of the Second World War but did not apply to be naturalized as Filipino citizens; neither did Jose apply for naturalization as a Filipino unlike his other living sister of the full blood, Juanita Lim Robredo; the father of Jose was a certain Lim Teng or Lim Tian Lai, also known by the appellation of Tinga by his contemporaries; the mother of Jose was a certain Luisa Chan or Luesa Chan; Jose's parents were married in mainland China and they had two children, Juanito and Josefina, both of whom are deceased; to erase his Chinese origins and the perception of such origins in the Filipino community, he had chosen to reside in Naga, Camarines Sur and adopted the Filipino name Juan Lim Robredo; he never had any Filipino relatives; the retention of his family name in combination with Filipino names is common among Chinese nationals who pass themselves off as Filipinos; Jose's mother showed a typical, physical and characteristics feature of being a pure Chinese of the traditional Manchu Dynasty exhibiting unusually small feet which were the result of having been bound tightly from birth to control their natural growth resulting in her abnormal walking gait, and she adopted a Filipino sounding first name Luisa or Luesa but retained a Chinese last name, Chan; after Jose's parents settled in Naga, they begot two (2) more children, Jose and Juanita; Jose was born on 21 July 1923 and duly registered in the Registry of Births of Naga; on the very face of the record of birth, Jose was undoubtedly of Chinese citizenship, his parents being both Chinese nationals whose place of birth was China; Juanita Lim Robredo, the fourth child of Juan Robredo and Luisa Chan and the full-blood sister of Jose, registered herself with the Bureau of Immigration as an alien being a Chinese national and was issued by the Bureau of Immigration an Alien Certificate of Registration; Juanita subsequently applied for naturalization as a Filipino citizen before the Special Committee on Naturalization under SCN Case No. 000181-W for wives of naturalized citizens by decree which simply show that she conveniently took advantage of the grant of Filipino citizenship to her husband for herself to become a naturalized citizen; if Juanita Lim Robredo-Hao Chin Chua, the younger sister of Jose, is Chinese and had to register herself with the Commission on Immigration as a Chinese national and availed herself of the privilege of applying for naturalization as a Filipino citizen, how can the elder brother be of

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

different nationality; the birth certificates of all the four (4) children of Juanita indicate her citizenship as Chinese; Lim Teng or Lim Tian Lai or Juan Lim Robredo returned to mainland China when near death and died in China and his remains lie buried in China; Jose misrepresented himself as a Filipino and passed this misrepresentation to his son Jesse, by falsely registering himself as a Filipino citizen with the Local Civil Registrar; when Jose applied for a Philippine Passport with the Department of Foreign Affairs, he concealed the fact that he has personal knowledge of the fact that his Record of Birth is intact and on file with the Records Management and Archives Office; by this falsity, Jose was granted by the DFA with Philippine Passport No. H621286 on 27 April 1991; among the records or supporting papers for his application for a Philippine Passport is an affidavit of allegedly two (2) disinterested persons to justify the absence of his record of birth and obviate the need for the production of the same; Jose cannot feign ignorance of the existence of his record of birth as he himself has personal knowledge of his record of birth as reflected in the affidavit he executed on 11 January 1972; Jose also used a chain of documentary exhibits, such as, his application for marriage license, marriage contract, affidavit dated 11 January 1972 and application for Philippine passport which show his deliberate attempt and continuing deception to pass himself off as a Filipino citizen and to have the effects and benefits of such deception passed on to his children; Jose made a mockery of the laws and the Constitution to which the only thing proper to do was to deport him for being an impostor; and his deception enabled him to exploit the natural resources of the country and to accumulate real property and operate a flourishing business and enjoy such other privileges which only Filipino citizens may enjoy. It was prayed therein that: the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation immediately register the respondents as aliens and Chinese nationals and order their immediate deportation. The case was assigned to Special Prosecutor Atty. Edy D. Donato of the Law and Investigation Division, for preliminary investigation.9 On 20 March 1992, Atty. Donato issued a Resolution10 finding prima facie evidence to sustain the filing of deportation charges against respondents for violation of the Immigration Act. On 22 March 1992, a Charge Sheet11 for deportation was filed against

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

respondents and the case was elevated to the Board of Special Inquiry for further proceedings.12 Respondents Robredo filed their Motion to Dismiss13 dated 11 April 1992 and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss14 dated 18 March 1992 praying that the case be dismissed, they being Filipino citizens and the Board of Special Inquiry has no jurisdiction over the case and over their persons. The Office of the Special Prosecutor, through Special Prosecutor Donato, filed its Opposition to Respondents' Motion to Dismiss dated 11 April 199215. Respondents Robredo filed their Reply16 dated 25 May 1992. In a Resolution17 dated 15 June 1992, the Board of Special Inquiry (the Board, for brevity) denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit and ordered the continuation of the deportation proceedings. Respondents Robredo filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 dated 29 June 1992. In an Order19 dated 08 July 1992, the Board denied the said Motion. Aggrieved, respondents Robredo filed their Appeal20 dated 29 July 1992 and Amended Appeal21 dated 03 August 1992. In an alleged Order22 dated 20 April 1995, purportedly solely issued by Commissioner Leandro T. Verceles, the case against said respondents was dismissed. Complainant Tan filed his Petition to Reconstitute Records and to Re-Open the Aforementioned Complaint for Further Proceedings23 dated 14 March 2000 alleging, inter alia, that the case was forwarded to the Board of Special Inquiry, then empowered to hear and receive evidence in cases of this nature, and that from then on, no further proceedings were taken and the records of the case are nowhere to be found despite diligent effort exerted to locate the same. The Bureau of Immigration, through its Board of Commissioners, in an Order24 dated 22 June 2000, granted said petition to reconstitute the records. In another Order25 dated 18 December 2000, the Board of Commissioners granted the petition for reconstitution considering that the case has long been pending for quite sometime and that the records were missing, and directing the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners to set the case (Deportation Case No. 92-736) for hearing on the merits.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

As averred in the instant Petition, respondents Robredo appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ, for brevity) the Order dated 18 December 2000 which granted the petition for reconstitution.26 In a letter-resolution27 dated 16 May 2002 addressed to then Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo, the DOJ, through then Secretary Hernando B. Perez, granted the appeal and consequently reversed and set aside the Order dated 18 December 2000 of the Board of Commissioners granting the petition to reconstitute records. Complainant Tan filed his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.28 The DOJ, through then Acting Secretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, issued a Resolution29 dated 01 March 2004 granting complainant Tan's Motion for Reconsideration; setting aside the assailed resolution dated 16 May 2002; and ordering the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to take immediate action for the reconstitution of the records of the case and to refer the same to the proper Board for further proceedings. Respondents Robredo filed their Urgent Motion for Reconsideration30 dated 23 April 2004. On 10 May 2007, Undersecretary Ernesto L. Pineda of the DOJ, issued a Resolution31 granting the Motion for Reconsideration and setting aside the Resolution dated 01 March 2004 of former Secretary Gutierrez; and directing the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to cease from reopening D.C. No. 92-736. Complainant Tan appealed and filed his Memorandum on Appeal32 dated 06 July 2007 before the Office of the President praying that the Resolution dated 10 May 2007 of DOJ Undersecretary Pineda be reversed and set aside and instead, uphold the Resolution dated 01 March 2004 of former Secretary Gutierrez. The Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, rendered its assailed Decision33 dated 06 August 2007, pertinent portions of which read:
At the outset, it bears stressing that the instant controversy devolves solely upon the issue of reconstitution of the records. DOJ Undersecretary Pineda thus abused his discretion when he completely disregarded the said issue and instead rule on respondent's citizenship. Whether his findings were based merely on speculations and conjectures or on misapprehension of facts

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision are not for us to determine in this appeal. The case brought to the DOJ involved an Order for reconstitution of the records. Being an interlocutory order, respondents' appeal therefrom should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. An interlocutory order is not a judgment on the merits or a final disposition of the case. It refers to something between the commencement and end of the suit which decides some point or matter. Conversely, a final order is one which leaves to the court nothing more to do to resolve the case. The test to ascertain whether an order is interlocutory or final is: Does it leave something to be done in the trial court (in this case, the Bureau of Immigration) with respect to the merits of the case If it does, it is an interlocutory order; if does not, it is a final order. Unlike a final order, an interlocutory order cannot be appealed except only when there is showing that the court or body acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Such ground is absent in the instant case. The issue of jurisdiction aside, we agree with DOJ Acting Secretary (now Ombudsman) Gutierrez that respondents' citizenship is best settled by the Board of Special Inquiry in a proceeding for that purpose after the parties have reconstituted the records of the case. Under the principle of equity, respondents must be given a chance to prove their true citizenship and controvert whatever evidence that complainant would present. This case should be remanded back to the Bureau of Immigration and/or Board of Special Inquiry for reception of evidence and reconstitution of the records. WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The May 10, 2007 Resolution of Justice Undersecretary Ernesto L. Pineda is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration is hereby directed to take immediate action for the reconstitution of the records of the instant case and thereafter, refer the same to the Board of Special Inquiry for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.34

Consequently, the Bureau of Immigration, through 35 Commissioner Marcelino C. Libanan, issued an Order dated 29

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

August 2007 in D.C. No. 92-736 (O.P. Case No. 07-F-199), ordering, for purposes of reconstituting the records of the case, that: (1) complainant shall have within 30 days from receipt of the order to submit an Aide-Memoire to the Chief of the Law and Investigation Division (LID); (2) the respondents shall submit his Reply within 30 days from receipt of a copy of complainant's Aide-Memoire; and (3) the LID Chief shall assign a special prosecutor, who shall have within 15 days from receipt of both Aide-Memoire and Reply to recommend in writing whether or not there exists a ground for deportation and (4) the LID Chief shall have within five days from receipt of the special prosecutor's recommendation to submit a written report to the Commissioner of Immigration. Respondents Robredo filed their Manifestation with Motion dated 31 October 2007 calling the attention of the Bureau of Immigration to the fact that at the time of the issuance of its 29 August 2007 Order, the assailed Decision of the Office of the President is not yet final and executory and that they have filed a motion for reconsideration therefrom.36 The Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, denied respondents Robredo's Motion for Reconsideration, in the assailed Resolution37 dated 04 December 2007, pertinent portions of which read:
After careful restudy, in the light of the arguments adduced in support of the instant motion, this Office finds no cogent reason or overriding justification to modify, much less reverse, the Decision sought to be reconsidered. Contrary to the claim of respondents, the requirement of notice and publication under Act. No. 3110 pertain only to judicial reconstitution of records; hence, the procedures outlined therein cannot be applied to the instant case. It is worth stressing that the object of reconstitution is to reproduce or replace lost records so that the Bureau of Immigration may judiciously continue with its proceedings from the point or stage where said proceedings stopped due to the loss of the records. Consequently, if there was no proper reconstitution of the case, complainant could not pursue his case against the respondents. In the same manner, respondents cannot insist upon the authenticity of the Verceles Order. Indeed, the authenticity of the said Order has been compromised when the same was

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision misplaced by the Bureau of Immigration. Every aspect of the right to due process must be afforded the complainant, and this includes the right to examine and assail the veracity of every piece of evidence presented by respondents. This can only be done in proceedings before the Bureau of Immigration. Reconstitution of the records should not be the sole responsibility of complainant. Respondents must also participate in the reconstitution proceedings. The reconstitution is as much the duty of the prosecution as of the defense, The principle enunciated in the case of Chua v. Court of Appeals (411 SCRA 611) is apropos: 'x x x xxx

As to the administrative liability of the custodian of the records, the same should be left to the discretion of the Immigration Commissioner. Finally, we find no basis to the allegation of respondents that this case was decided solely on complainant's Memorandum of Appeal. In resolving the appeal, this Office took into consideration the sides of both parties and the rulings of the offices a quo. The fact that this Office ruled in favor of complainant does not mean that it is already bias against the respondents. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with finality. Accordingly, let the records of the case be remanded to the Department of Justice for its appropriate disposition. The Bureau of Immigration and/or the Board of Special Inquiry are directed to resolve with dispatch the instant case after the parties have reconstituted the necessary records. SO ORDERED.38

RULING
Petitioners Robredo raise the following arguments, viz:
I. THE ORDER DATED APRIL 20, 1995 ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision IMMIGRATION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR COMPULSORY REGISTRATION AS CHINESE NATIONALS AND DEPORTATION AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONERS HAS LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY; PETITIONERS HAVE ALREADY ACQUIRED VESTED RIGHTS OVER SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT; RESPONDENT ORLANDO P. TAN IS THEREBY BARRED FROM FILING ANY FURTHER COMPLAINT OF SIMILAR NATURE AGAINST PETITIONERS. II. THE PETITIONERS WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT RAILROADED THE CASE AGAINST THEM. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE RECONSTITUTION AND RE-OPENING OF THE COMPLAINT FOR COMPULSORY REGISTRATION AS CHINESE NATIONALS AND DEPORTATION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDING DESPITE FAILURE OF RESPONDENT ORLANDO TAN TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE OF ACT NO. 311O WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN SUPPLETORY CHARACTER AND DESPITE LACK OF PERSONALITY TO INITIATE THE SAME. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF A COMPULSORY REGISTRATION AS CHINESE NATIONALS AND DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS.39

10

III.

IV.

Petitioners contend that: the ruling of the Office of the President, if implemented will result in disregarding an elementary tenet in the law of procedure, i.e., a judgment or ruling which has

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

11

attained finality cannot be disturbed; from the issuance of the 20 April 1995 Order of the Bureau of Immigration up to the time that the respondent filed his Petition to Reconstitute Records and to Re-Open the Complaint for Compulsory Registration as Chinese Nationals and Deportation for Further Proceedings on 14 March 2000, almost five (5) years or 1,778 days had already passed, thus, the decision has already acquired finality and becomes immutable and unalterable; it was grave error for the Office of the President to have disregarded this basic legal principle; more than twelve (12) years have passed up to the preparation of the instant Petition, a long time for the petitioners to suffer the harassment at the hands of the respondent and his attempts at causing the misadministration of justice for the furtherance of mere political and vindictive ends; they were denied due process when the Office of the President railroaded the case against them; the essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard; and the manner by which the Office of the President issued the assailed decision was bereft of this real opportunity to be heard when it relied solely on the misrepresentation of the respondent and without taking into consideration the actual facts as alleged by petitioners. Petitioners posit that: the Office of the President committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the reconstitution and reopening of the Complaint for further proceedings despite failure of the respondent to comply with the mandate of Act. No. 3110, which is applicable in supplementary character and despite his lack of personality to initiate the same; no notice of loss was issued by the office of the clerk having custody of the records of the case D.C. No. 92-736 and neither was such notice published in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation; respondent merely alleged, albeit wrongfully, that when case D.C. No. 92-736 was forwarded to the Board of Special Inquiry, no further proceedings were taken and the records are nowhere to be found despite diligent effort exerted to locate; this allegation cannot be given credence as the case D.C. No. 92-736 was forwarded to the Board of Special Inquiry and the Board of Commissioners, as stated earlier, dismissed the Complaint; the Office of the President disregarded the fact that petitioners are Filipino citizens and as such cannot be the subject of a compulsory registration as Chinese nationals and deportation proceedings; it is

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

12

fatal error on the part of the respondent to anchor his complaint on Commonwealth Act 613 since this law only deals with aliens and the petitioners, being Filipino citizens, can never fall within the category of aliens; it is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Bureau of Immigration and of the Office of the President to uphold the petition filed by the respondent; the re-opening of the case against the petitioners will put in jeopardy their legally acquired and constitutionally guaranteed right, i.e., to continue enjoying their prerogatives as Filipino citizens, a right which they acquired since birth. In support of their prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, petitioners basically argues that the continuation by the Bureau of Immigration of its reconstitution of records and the reopening of the case against them will work injustice to the petitioners and the people of Naga City as petitioner Jesse is serving them as their duly elected local chief executive. Respondent Tan counters that: the Office of the President judiciously and in consonance with the prevailing law and jurisprudence ruled that the reconstitution of records is proper; the issuance of the Decision dated 06 August 2007 sans petitioners' Reply Memorandum was the latter's fault and not of the Office of the President; the fifteen (15) day period for filing a reply memorandum as stated in the 16 August 2007 Order was inextendible and the filing of a motion for extension of time therefrom defies the Order with the motive to delay the resolution of the case and which respondent have done for more than a decade; petitioners have no basis for claiming denial of due process, much more, accusing the Office of the President of railroading the case; the submission of notice of loss and publication are not necessary in the instant case; Act 3110, as stated by the Office of the President, applies only to judicial proceedings; be that as it may, what is vital is that the records a quo are indeed missing which was affirmed and confirmed by the Board of Commissioners when it granted respondent's petition for reconstitution; even petitioners, in their Manifestation and Motion dated 18 January 2008, stated that the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation cannot issue certified true copies of some of the annexes in view of the process of reconstitution; and he has the legal standing

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

13

for the reconstitution of records as he is entitled to have access to the records of the case which he initiated. Respondent further maintains that: the Office of the President correctly set aside the examination and assessment on whether or not petitioners are Filipinos as the only issue presented before it is the reconstitution of records; thus, the determination of petitioners' citizenship has not yet commenced; the Office of the President is not a trier of facts; the deceptions, misrepresentations and grossly misleading asseverations of petitioners are too patent and too flagrant to be ignored and hence, the instant case should be dismissed outright; among these deceptions, are: (1) petitioners alluded to an alleged prior ruling that they were declared Filipinos when there is no final and executory finding of such sort; any previous rulings whether in favor of or against the petitioners have not yet reached the stage of finality and therefore no res judicata has yet ensued; thus, petitioners cannot claim any vested right over any ruling in their favor; (2) petitioners fraudulently claim as a side issue that when the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation considered the case before the records were lost, then Commissioner Verceles issued an Order dismissing the complaint filed by respondent however, the copy that was surprisingly supplied by petitioner was never authenticated, no evidence was produced that the same was promulgated and that, herein respondent was never furnished such copy on or about the time when the Order was allegedly issued and petitioners sprung such a copy only after his death, when he could no longer confirm or deny that he issued said Order; (3) petitioners are claiming that it was only Lim Teng who arrived aboard the vessel Esmeralda on 02 April 1896 and that his grandparents arrived as married persons which allegations were different with Jesse's admission in his Verified Answer in the case of Fortuno v. Robredo; (4) the death certificate being claimed by petitioners is not a public document; and (5) it is not the same death certificate presented before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation; (6) said death certificate was only issued forty (40) years after the death of the alleged Juan Robredo; (7) Juan Robredo, in said death certificate, could not pertain to the Lim Teng that petitioners claim to have arrived in the Philippines in 1896; and (8) petitioners' claim that their immediate ascendants resided in the Philippines when said

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

14

ascendants did not obtain a declaration of residency in the Philippines from the Captain General, which is required under the existing laws at that time. Respondent also asserts that: the petitioners are not entitled to the injunctive relief that they are seeking from this Court and the instant case should be dismissed for lack of merit; petitioners have no clear right to restraint the process of reconstituting the records; they would not sustain damages by the simple process of reconstitution, instead they would benefit therefrom, inasmuch as a definitive ruling on their citizenship would be arrived at; and petitioners must come to the court with clean hands and not with misleading and deceptive claims. The Petition is bereft of merit. Stripped of verbiage, the only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the Office of the President erred in directing the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to take immediate action for the reconstitution of the records in Deportation Case No. 92-736. We find in the negative. It is worthy to note that the whole theory of reconstitution is to reproduce or replace records lost or destroyed so that said records may be complete and court proceedings may continue from the point or stage where said proceedings stopped due to the loss of the records.40 The matter concerning petitioners' citizenship is not an issue to be passed upon or resolved by Us in the instant Petition but by the Bureau of Immigration in D.C. No. 92-736. As aptly stressed by the Office of the President, the controversy devolves solely upon the issue of reconstitution of the records in said D.C. No. 92-736. Thus, without reconstitution of the records in said deportation case which was filed against petitioners, no further proceedings can be had. As found by the Office of the President, x x x the Board did not conduct any proceedings thereon as the records of the case

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

15

mysteriously disappeared and (c)omplainant was later informed of the missing records.41 The Board of Commissioners, in its Order42 dated 18 December 2000, found that D.C. Case No. 92-736 has long been pending before the Bureau of Immigration for quite sometime, thus, it granted the petition for reconstitution. Since respondent is the complainant who initiated the filing of the Complaint against the petitioners, and thereafter D.C. Case No. 92-736 was filed against petitioners, respondent has the personality to petition before the Bureau of Immigration for the reconstitution of the missing records thereof. The reconstitution is as much the duty of the prosecution as the defense43 and the mysterious disappearance of the records is an event which weighs equally against all. The said reconstitution cannot be considered as a filing anew of the complaint but it is merely the reproduction and replacement of the missing or lost records in D.C. Case No. 92-736. Neither is the authenticity of the alleged Order44 dated 20 April 1995 dismissing the case, supposedly solely issued by then Immigration Commissioner Leandro Verceles, instead of by the Board of Commissioners acting collectively, an issue for resolution in this Petition. Precisely, the records of the deportation case filed against petitioners are missing and the same must be reconstituted so that the existence or non-existence of said Order can be properly ascertained in said D.C. Case No. 92-736. At any rate, it bears noting that absent any such proof of authenticity, the photocopy of the (Order) should be considered inadmissible and, hence, without probative value.45 The sound reason behind this policy is to ensure that the copy of the order sought to be reviewed is a faithful reproduction of the original found in the record of the case. Further, the powers and duties of the Board of Commissioners may not be exercised by the individual members of the Commission.46 Moreover, the 18 December 2006 Order of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration refers only to the reconstitution of the records in D.C. Case No. 92-736 so that said case can be set for hearing on the merits. No final decision has, as yet, been rendered by the Board in said deportation case. It has been held that in the deportation case, resort to court is proper only after a decision is rendered by the Board of Commissioners of the

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

16

Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau is the best agency that can best determine whether petitioners violated certain provisions of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. In this jurisdiction, courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative departments over matters falling within their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon and their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts.47 Petitioners insist that respondent failed to comply with the mandate of Act No. 3110 with respect to the notice and publication requirement. We are not persuaded. Act No. 3110,48 is the general law that governs the reconstitution of judicial records.49 Sections 1 and 2 thereof provide:
SECTION 1. As soon as practicable after the occurrence of any fire or other public calamity resulting in the loss of all or part of the records of judicial proceedings on file in the office of the clerk of a Court of First Instance, said officer shall send a notice by registered mail to the Secretary of Justice, the Attorney-General, the Director of Lands, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, the clerk of the Supreme Court, the judge of the province, the register of deeds of the province, the provincial fiscal, and all lawyers who may be interested, stating the date on which such fire or public calamity occurred and whether the loss or destruction was total or partial, and giving a brief list of the proceedings not affected in case the loss or destruction was partial. SECTION 2. Upon receipt of the notice mentioned in the preceding section, the court shall issue or cause to be issued a general notice which shall be addressed and sent by registered mail to the lawyers and officers mentioned in the preceding section, and to such other persons as might be interested, advising them of the destruction of the records, with a brief list of the proceedings not affected in case the destruction was partial, and of the time fixed by this Act for the reconstitution of the destroyed records.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision This notice shall also be published in the Official Gazette and in one of the newspapers most widely read in the province, once a week, for four consecutive weeks. (Emphasis supplied)

17

Clearly, it can be gleaned from the foregoing, that the notice and publication requirements of Act 3110 pertain only to judicial reconstitution of records and not to the reconstitution of records of a pending deportation case before the Bureau of Immigration. Petitioners asseverate that they were denied due process and that the Office of the President railroaded the case against them. We remain unpersuaded. It must be noted that before the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 07-F-199 rendered its assailed Decision, it issued an Order50 dated 13 June 2007, through Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Manuel B. Gaite, directing herein petitioners to submit, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of herein respondent's memorandum, their reply memorandum, otherwise, the case will be decided on the basis of available records. In the same Order, herein petitioners were also ordered to submit, within 15 days from receipt of said Order, simultaneously with the submission of their reply memorandum, the draft of the decision that they seek from said Office, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law upon which they are based. Petitioners, instead of filing their Reply Memorandum, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Memorandum and Draft Decision51 dated 26 July 2007. Thus, the Office of the President rendered the assailed Decision dated 06 August 2007 on the basis of the available records. Aggrieved by this Decision, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration and Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration52. The Office of the President denied the same in the assailed Resolution53 dated 04 December 2007. Procedural due process, in gist, is the necessity for notice and an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Its essence is encapsulated in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades:

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

18

"Strike but hear me first." Thus, as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his/her interests in due course, the party would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.54 Thus, there was no denial of due process as self-servingly claimed by the petitioners. Petitioners even filed their Motion for Reconsideration and Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration, which were opposed by the respondent.55 Where the parties were given the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, they cannot claim denial of due process of law.56 From the foregoing disquisitions, We find that no error was committed by the Office of the President in ordering the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to take immediate action for the reconstitution of the records of D.C. Case No. 92-736. Inasmuch as petitioners are not entitled to the relief demanded in their Petition, their prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order must perforce fail. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the Decision dated 06 August 2007 and Resolution dated 04 December 2007 of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 07-F-199 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO Associate Justice

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

19

WE CONCUR:

MARIO L. GUARIA III Associate Justice

RICARDO R. ROSARIO Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

MARIO L. GUARIA III Associate Justice Chairman, Fourteenth Division

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

20

41 42 43

44

Rollo, pp. 6-43 Id., at pp. 44-46 Id., at pp. 47-48 Id., at pp. 517-556 Id., at pp. 723-731 Id., at pp. 514 (dorsal side) Id., at p. 732 Id., at pp. 49-56 Id., at p. 44 Id., at pp. 638-644 Id., at pp. 645-646 Id., at p. 44 Id., at pp. 57-60 Id., at pp. 61-65 Id., at pp. 310-315 Id., at pp. 316-323 Id., at pp. 79-82 Id., at pp. 324-329 Id., at p. 330 Id., at pp. 331-340 Id., at pp. 341-355 Id., at p. 83 Id., at pp. 84-86 Id., at p. 87 Id., at pp. 439-441 Id., at p. 16 Id., at pp. 88-94 Id., at p. 371 Id., at pp. 371-376 Id., at pp. 377-391 Id., at pp. 95-100 Id., at pp. 392-426 Id., at pp. 44-46 Id., at pp. 45-46 Id., at p. 101 Id., at p. 20 Id., at pp. 47-48 Ibid. Id., at pp. 21, 26, 30, 32 Juco v. Heirs of Tomas Siy Chung Fu, G.R. No. 150233, 16 February 2005, 451 SCRA 464, 472 Rollo, p. 44 Id., at pp.439-441 Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 152823 & 152824, 23 September 2003, 411 SCRA 611, 619 Rollo, p. 83

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821 Decision

45

21

46 47

48

49

50 51 52 53 54

55 56

Cf. Office of the Ombudsman v. Carmencita Coronel, G.R. No. 164460, 27 June 2006 Domingo v. Scheer, G.R. No. 154745, 29 January 2004, 421 SCRA 468, 483 Dwikarna v. Domingo, G.R. No. 153454, 07 July 2004, 433 SCRA 748, 754755 An Act to Provide an Adequate Procedure for the Reconstitution of the Records of Pending Judicial Proceedings and Books, Documents, and Files of the Office of the Register of Deeds, Destroyed by Fire or Other Public Calamities, and For Other Purposes Loreta Agustin Chong, etc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 148280, 10 July 2007 Rollo, pp. 557-558 Id., at pp. 559-562 Id., at p. 563 Id., at pp. 47-48 Rodolfo M. Cuenca v. Hon. Alberto P. Atas, et. al., G.R. No. 146214, 05 October 2007 Rollo, pp. 563-573 Amarillo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 145007-08, 28 January 2003, 396 SCRA 434, 441