Board of Commissioners (CID) v dela Rosa (1991) -PRIMARY JURISDICTION

FACTS:
Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by the SolGen for the Board of Commissioners
of the Bureau of Immigration (formerly the CID) and Board of Special Inquiry to set aside
two orders issued by different judges of RTCs and to enjoin public respondent judges
from acting on the ff. civil cases:
1st case: filed by Gatchalian in the RTC of Manila. Judge dela Rosa issued an order that
denied the Motion to Dismiss and restrained petitioners from commencing or continuing
with any proceedings that will lead to the deportation of William Gatchalian
2nd case: filed by Gatchalian’s wife and minor children in the RTC of Valenzuela. Judge
Capulong issued an that enjoined petitioners from proceeding with the deportation
charges against Gatchalian
July 12, 1960: Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William, was recognized by the Bureau
of Immigration as a native born Filipino Citizen. He also testified that he had 5 children
with his wife Chu Gim Tee: Jose, Gloria, Francisco (William’s father), Elena, and
Benjamin.
June 27, 1961: Then 12-year old William arrived in Manila from Hongkong with Gloria,
Francisco, and Johnson Gatchalian with Certificates of Registration and Identity issued
by the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram from the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs.
July 12, 1961: the Board of Special Inquiry admitted William and his companions as
Filipino Citizens.
July 6, 1962: Board of Commissioners, after reviewing the decision of the Board of Special
Inquiry reversed the decision of the latter and ordered the exclusion of respondent
Gatchalian
The 1967 case of Arocha v Vivo sustained the validity of said order.
1973: Gatchalian and others covered by the warrant of exclusion filed a motion for re-
hearing with the Board of Special Inquiry. Acting Commissioner Nituda later issued an
order recalling the warrant of arrest against Gatchalian.
1990: acting director of NBI wrote to the DOJ recommending that Gatchalian and others
covered by the warrant of exclusion be charged with violation of the Immigration act. The
SOJ indorsed the recommendation and a mission order was issued by Commissioner
Domingo of the CID ordering the arrest of Gatchalian.
Gatchalian filed the present civil cases that are being assailed in the case at bar.
Petitioner’s arguments:
The judges have no jurisdiction over petitioner and the subject matter;
That assuming the judges had jurisdiction, they acted with grave abuse of discretion by
hearing the deportation case and in effect determined Gatchalian’s citizenship;
That respondent judges disregarded the cases of Arocha v Vivo and Vivo v Acra which
put to finality the order of the Board of Commissioners
Respondent committed forum-shopping
Private respondent’s arguments:
Petitioners have no jurisdiction to proceed with the deportation case until the courts have
resolved the issue of his citizenship;
Petitioners cannot fairly and judiciously dispose of the deportation case;
Ground for deportation has already prescribed.
ISSUE: WON the RTCs had jurisdiction over the cases. YES.
RULING:
Under §21 of BP 129, the RTC has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC and CA to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction
While §9(3) of BP 129 vests the CA with exclusive jurisdiction over “quasi-judicial
agencies, instrumentalities, board or commission, except those falling within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of
this Act, and of sub-paragraph (1) of the third paragraph of and sub-paragraph (4) of the
fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948”, the same does not provide
that the exclusive appellate jurisdiction extends to all quasi-judicial agencies.
The quasi-judicial bodies whose decisions are exclusively appealable to the Court of
Appeals are those which under the law, Republic Act No. 5434, or their enabling acts, are
specifically appealable to the Court of Appeals.
RA 5434 does not include the Bureau of Immigration. The decisions of the Bureau of
Immigration are subject to judicial review in accordance with §25, Chapter 4, Book VII of
the Administrative Code:
Sec. 25. Judicial Review.—(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in
accordance with this chapter and applicable laws.
xxx xxx xxx
(6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified in the statute or, in the
absence thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions
on venue of the Rules of Court.
B.P. Blg. 129 did not intend to raise all quasi-judicial bodies to the same level or rank of
the RTC except those specifically provided for under the law as aforestated. As the
Bureau of Immigration is not of equal rank as the RTC, its decisions may be appealable
to, and may be reviewed through a special civil action for certiorari by, the RTC (Sec. 21,
(1) BP 129).
While it is true that Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to
try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in the process, determine also their
citizenship and that a mere claim of citizenship cannot operate to divest the Board of
Commissioners of its jurisdiction in deportation proceedings, the Court carved out an
exception in Chua Hiong v Deportation Board:
When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right
to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the
deportation proceedings.
Judicial intervention, however, should be granted only in cases where the claim of
citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is
correct.
Hence, Gatchalian’s petitions before the RTCs contained a proper and ripe controversy
for the disposition of the courts. He also presented sufficient documents and other
evidence to his petitions.