Robredo v Tan

7/29/2019 Robredo v Tan

1/21

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALSManila

FOURTEENTH DIVISION

JOSE LIM ROBREDO andJESSE 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 theIssuance of A Temporary Restraining Order)1 under Rule 43 of the1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision2dated 06 August 2007 of the Office of the President in the caseentitled Orlando P. Tan v. Jose Lim Robredo and Jesse M. Robredodocketed as O.P. Case No. 07-F-199, the dispositive portion of whichreads:

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


2/21

CA-G.R. SP. No. 101821Decision 2

WHEREFORE, the appeal is herebyGRANTED. The May10, 2007 Resolution of Justice Undersecretary Ernesto L. Pinedais REVERSED andSET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Commissionerof the Bureau of Immigration is hereby directed to take immediateaction for the reconstitution of the records of the instant case andthereafter, refer the same to the Board of Special Inquiry for further

proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

and the Resolution3 dated 04 December 2007 denying the Motion forReconsideration with finality.

Respondent filed his Comment4 dated 02 June 2008.Petitioners also filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion toReiterate Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)5dated 27 June 2008. Per JRD report6 dated 01 July 2008, no reply toComment was filed, as per docket book entry. Thus, in a Resolution7dated 04 July 2008, respondents' Comment and petitioners' Ex-ParteManifestation and Motion was both noted, and the Petition, withprayer for temporary restraining order, was submitted forresolution/decision.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

Based on certain documents/pleadings submitted by the partiesin the instant Petition, the following antecedents appear:

A Complaint8 dated 16 December 1991 was filed bycomplainant (herein respondent) Orlando P. Tan (Tan, for brevity)against respondents (herein petitioners) Jose Lim Robredo alias JoseChan Robredo (Jose, for brevity) and Jesse M. Robredo (Jesse,for brevity) for Compulsory Registration as Chinese Nationals andDeportation filed before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation.

It was alleged, inter alia, that: the parents of Jose were both


3/21


Chinese and residents of mainland China, they came to thePhilippines before the outbreak of the Second World War but did notapply to be naturalized as Filipino citizens; neither did Jose apply fornaturalization as a Filipino unlike his other living sister of the fullblood, Juanita Lim Robredo; the father of Jose was a certain LimTeng or Lim Tian Lai, also known by the appellation of Tinga by hiscontemporaries; the mother of Jose was a certain Luisa Chan orLuesa Chan; Jose's parents were married in mainland China andthey had two children, Juanito and Josefina, both of whom are

deceased; to erase his Chinese origins and the perception of suchorigins in the Filipino community, he had chosen to reside in Naga,Camarines Sur and adopted the Filipino name Juan Lim Robredo; henever had any Filipino relatives; the retention of his family name incombination with Filipino names is common among Chinese nationalswho pass themselves off as Filipinos; Jose's mother showed atypical, physical and characteristics feature of being a pure Chineseof the traditional Manchu Dynasty exhibiting unusually small feetwhich were the result of having been bound tightly from birth to

control their natural growth resulting in her abnormal walking gait, andshe adopted a Filipino sounding first name Luisa or Luesa butretained a Chinese last name, Chan; after Jose's parents settled inNaga, they begot two (2) more children, Jose and Juanita; Jose wasborn on 21 July 1923 and duly registered in the Registry of Births ofNaga; on the very face of the record of birth, Jose was undoubtedly ofChinese citizenship, his parents being both Chinese nationals whoseplace of birth was China; Juanita Lim Robredo, the fourth child ofJuan 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 anAlien Certificate of Registration; Juanita subsequently applied fornaturalization as a Filipino citizen before the Special Committee onNaturalization under SCN Case No. 000181-W for wives ofnaturalized citizens by decree which simply show that sheconveniently took advantage of the grant of Filipino citizenship to herhusband for herself to become a naturalized citizen; if Juanita LimRobredo-Hao Chin Chua, the younger sister of Jose, is Chinese andhad to register herself with the Commission on Immigration as a

Chinese national and availed herself of the privilege of applying fornaturalization as a Filipino citizen, how can the elder brother be of


4/21


different nationality; the birth certificates of all the four (4) children ofJuanita indicate her citizenship as Chinese; Lim Teng or Lim Tian Laior Juan Lim Robredo returned to mainland China when near deathand died in China and his remains lie buried in China; Josemisrepresented himself as a Filipino and passed thismisrepresentation to his son Jesse, by falsely registering himself as aFilipino citizen with the Local Civil Registrar; when Jose applied for aPhilippine Passport with the Department of Foreign Affairs, heconcealed the fact that he has personal knowledge of the fact that his

Record of Birth is intact and on file with the Records Managementand Archives Office; by this falsity, Jose was granted by the DFA withPhilippine Passport No. H621286 on 27 April 1991; among therecords or supporting papers for his application for a PhilippinePassport is an affidavit of allegedly two (2) disinterested persons to

justify the absence of his record of birth and obviate the need for theproduction of the same; Jose cannot feign ignorance of the existenceof his record of birth as he himself has personal knowledge of hisrecord of birth as reflected in the affidavit he executed on 11 January

1972; Jose also used a chain of documentary exhibits, such as, hisapplication for marriage license, marriage contract, affidavit dated 11January 1972 and application for Philippine passport which show hisdeliberate attempt and continuing deception to pass himself off as aFilipino citizen and to have the effects and benefits of such deceptionpassed on to his children; Jose made a mockery of the laws and theConstitution to which the only thing proper to do was to deport him forbeing an impostor; and his deception enabled him to exploit thenatural resources of the country and to accumulate real property andoperate a flourishing business and enjoy such other privileges which

only Filipino citizens may enjoy. It was prayed therein that: theBureau of Immigration and Deportation immediately register therespondents as aliens and Chinese nationals and order theirimmediate deportation.

The case was assigned to Special Prosecutor Atty. Edy D.Donato of the Law and Investigation Division, for preliminaryinvestigation.9 On 20 March 1992, Atty. Donato issued a Resolution10finding prima facie evidence to sustain the filing of deportation

charges against respondents for violation of the Immigration Act. On22 March 1992, a Charge Sheet11 for deportation was filed against


5/21


respondents and the case was elevated to the Board of SpecialInquiry for further proceedings.12

Respondents Robredo filed their Motion to Dismiss13 dated 11April 1992 and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss14 dated 18 March1992 praying that the case be dismissed, they being Filipino citizensand the Board of Special Inquiry has no jurisdiction over the case andover their persons. The Office of the Special Prosecutor, throughSpecial Prosecutor Donato, filed its Opposition to Respondents'

Motion to Dismiss dated 11 April 199215. Respondents Robredo filedtheir Reply16 dated 25 May 1992.

In a Resolution17 dated 15 June 1992, the Board of SpecialInquiry (the Board, for brevity) denied the motion to dismiss for lackof merit and ordered the continuation of the deportation proceedings.Respondents Robredo filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 dated 29June 1992. In an Order19 dated 08 July 1992, the Board denied thesaid Motion. Aggrieved, respondents Robredo filed their Appeal20

dated 29 July 1992 and Amended Appeal

21

dated 03 August 1992. Inan alleged Order22 dated 20 April 1995, purportedly solely issued byCommissioner Leandro T. Verceles, the case against saidrespondents was dismissed.

Complainant Tan filed his Petition to Reconstitute Records andto Re-Open the Aforementioned Complaint for Further Proceedings23dated 14 March 2000 alleging, inter alia, that the case was forwardedto the Board of Special Inquiry, then empowered to hear and receiveevidence in cases of this nature, and that from then on, no further

proceedings were taken and the records of the case are nowhere tobe found despite diligent effort exerted to locate the same. TheBureau of Immigration, through its Board of Commissioners, in anOrder24 dated 22 June 2000, granted said petition to reconstitute therecords. In another Order25 dated 18 December 2000, the Board ofCommissioners granted the petition for reconstitution considering thatthe case has long been pending for quite sometime and that therecords were missing, and directing the Secretary of the Board ofCommissioners to set the case (Deportation Case No. 92-736) for

hearing on the merits.


6/21


As averred in the instant Petition, respondents Robredoappealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ, for brevity) the Orderdated 18 December 2000 which granted the petition forreconstitution.26 In a letter-resolution27 dated 16 May 2002 addressedto then Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo, the DOJ, through thenSecretary Hernando B. Perez, granted the appeal and consequentlyreversed and set aside the Order dated 18 December 2000 of theBoard 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 complainantTan's Motion for Reconsideration; setting aside the assailedresolution dated 16 May 2002; and ordering the Commissioner of theBureau of Immigration to take immediate action for the reconstitutionof the records of the case and to refer the same to the proper Boardfor further proceedings.

Respondents Robredo filed their Urgent Motion for

Reconsideration

30

dated 23 April 2004. On 10 May 2007,Undersecretary Ernesto L. Pineda of the DOJ, issued a Resolution31granting the Motion for Reconsideration and setting aside theResolution dated 01 March 2004 of former Secretary Gutierrez; anddirecting the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to ceasefrom reopening D.C. No. 92-736.

Complainant Tan appealed and filed his Memorandum onAppeal32 dated 06 July 2007 before the Office of the Presidentpraying 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 SecretaryGutierrez. The Office of the President, through Executive SecretaryEduardo R. Ermita, rendered its assailed Decision33 dated 06 August2007, pertinent portions of which read:

At the outset, it bears stressing that the instant controversydevolves solely upon the issue of reconstitution of the records.DOJ Undersecretary Pineda thus abused his discretion when hecompletely disregarded the said issue and instead rule on

respondent's citizenship. Whether his findings were based merelyon speculations and conjectures or on misapprehension of facts


7/21


are not for us to determine in this appeal.

The case brought to the DOJ involved an Order forreconstitution of the records. Being an interlocutory order,respondents' appeal therefrom should have been dismissed forwant of jurisdiction.

An interlocutory order is not a judgment on the merits or afinal disposition of the case. It refers to something between thecommencement and end of the suit which decides some point ormatter. Conversely, a final order is one which leaves to the courtnothing more to do to resolve the case. The test to ascertainwhether an order is interlocutory or final is: Does it leave somethingto be done in the trial court (in this case, the Bureau ofImmigration) with respect to the merits of the case If it does, it isan interlocutory order; if does not, it is a final order. Unlike a finalorder, an interlocutory order cannot be appealed except only whenthere is showing that the court or body acted without or in excessof jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Such ground isabsent in the instant case.

The issue of jurisdiction aside, we agree with DOJ ActingSecretary (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 therecords of the case. Under the principle of equity, respondentsmust be given a chance to prove their true citizenship andcontrovert whatever evidence that complainant would present. Thiscase should be remanded back to the Bureau of Immigrationand/or Board of Special Inquiry for reception of evidence andreconstitution of the records.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is herebyGRANTED. The May10, 2007 Resolution of Justice Undersecretary Ernesto L. Pinedais REVERSED andSET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Commissionerof the Bureau of Immigration is hereby directed to take immediateaction for the reconstitution of the records of the instant case andthereafter, refer the same to the Board of Special Inquiry for further

proceedings.

SO ORDERED.34

Consequently, the Bureau of Immigration, throughCommissioner Marcelino C. Libanan, issued an Order35 dated 29


8/21


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 tosubmit an Aide-Memoire to the Chief of the Law and InvestigationDivision (LID); (2) the respondents shall submit his Reply within 30days from receipt of a copy of complainant's Aide-Memoire; and (3)the LID Chief shall assign a special prosecutor, who shall have within15 days from receipt of bothAide-Memoire and Reply to recommendin writing whether or not there exists a ground for deportation and (4)

the LID Chief shall have within five days from receipt of the specialprosecutor's recommendation to submit a written report to theCommissioner of Immigration.

Respondents Robredo filed their Manifestation with Motiondated 31 October 2007 calling the attention of the Bureau ofImmigration to the fact that at the time of the issuance of its 29

August 2007 Order, the assailed Decision of the Office of thePresident 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 forReconsideration, in the assailed Resolution37 dated 04 December2007, pertinent portions of which read:

After careful restudy, in the light of the arguments adducedin support of the instant motion, this Office finds no cogent reasonor 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. 3110pertain only to judicial reconstitution of records; hence, theprocedures outlined therein cannot be applied to the instant case.

It is worth stressing that the object of reconstitution is toreproduce or replace lost records so that the Bureau of Immigrationmay judiciously continue with its proceedings from the point orstage where said proceedings stopped due to the loss of therecords. Consequently, if there was no proper reconstitution of thecase, complainant could not pursue his case against therespondents. In the same manner, respondents cannot insist uponthe authenticity of the Verceles Order. Indeed, the authenticity ofthe said Order has been compromised when the same was


9/21


misplaced by the Bureau of Immigration. Every aspect of the rightto due process must be afforded the complainant, and this includesthe right to examine and assail the veracity of every piece ofevidence presented by respondents. This can only be done in

proceedings before the Bureau of Immigration.

Reconstitution of the records should not be the soleresponsibility of complainant. Respondents must also participate inthe reconstitution proceedings. The reconstitution is as much theduty of the prosecution as of the defense, The principle enunciatedin the case of Chua v. Court of Appeals (411 SCRA 611) isapropos:

'x x x x x x

As to the administrative liability of the custodian of therecords, the same should be left to the discretion of the ImmigrationCommissioner.

Finally, we find no basis to the allegation of respondentsthat this case was decided solely on complainant's Memorandum of

Appeal. In resolving the appeal, this Office took into considerationthe sides of both parties and the rulings of the offices a quo. Thefact that this Office ruled in favor of complainant does not mean thatit is already bias against the respondents.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is herebyDENIED with finality. Accordingly, let the records of the case beremanded to the Department of Justice for its appropriatedisposition. The Bureau of Immigration and/or the Board of SpecialInquiry are directed to resolve with dispatch the instant case afterthe parties have reconstituted the necessary records.

SO ORDERED.38

R U L I N G

Petitioners Robredo raise the following arguments, viz:

I. THE ORDER DATED APRIL 20, 1995ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF


10/21


IMMIGRATION DISMISSING THECOMPLAINT FOR COMPULSORYREGISTRATION AS CHINESE NATIONALS

AND DEPORTATION AGAINST HEREINPETITIONERS HAS LONG BECOME FINAL

AND EXECUTORY; PETITIONERS HAVEALREADY ACQUIRED VESTED RIGHTSOVER SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT;RESPONDENT ORLANDO P. TAN ISTHEREBY BARRED FROM FILING ANYFURTHER COMPLAINT OF SIMILARNATURE AGAINST PETITIONERS.

II. THE PETITIONERS WERE DENIED DUEPROCESS WHEN THE OFFICE OF THEPRESIDENT RAILROADED THE CASE

AGAINST THEM.

III. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTCOMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OFDISCRETION IN GRANTING THERECONSTITUTION AND RE-OPENING OFTHE COMPLAINT FOR COMPULSORYREGISTRATION AS CHINESE NATIONALS

AND DEPORTATION FOR FURTHERPROCEEDING DESPITE FAILURE OFRESPONDENT ORLANDO TAN TOCOMPLY WITH THE MANDATE OF ACTNO. 311O WHICH IS APPLICABLE INSUPPLETORY CHARACTER AND DESPITELACK OF PERSONALITY TO INITIATE THESAME.

IV. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTDISREGARDED THE FACT THAT THEPETITIONERS ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS

AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE THE SUBJECTOF A COMPULSORY REGISTRATION ASCHINESE NATIONALS AND DEPORTATION

PROCEEDINGS.39

Petitioners contend that: the ruling of the Office of the

President, if implemented will result in disregarding an elementarytenet in the law of procedure, i.e., a judgment or ruling which has


11/21


attained finality cannot be disturbed; from the issuance of the 20 April1995 Order of the Bureau of Immigration up to the time that therespondent filed his Petition to Reconstitute Records and to Re-Openthe Complaint for Compulsory Registration as Chinese Nationals andDeportation for Further Proceedings on 14 March 2000, almost five(5) years or 1,778 days had already passed, thus, the decision hasalready acquired finality and becomes immutable and unalterable; itwas grave error for the Office of the President to have disregardedthis basic legal principle; more than twelve (12) years have passed up

to the preparation of the instant Petition, a long time for thepetitioners to suffer the harassment at the hands of the respondentand his attempts at causing the misadministration of justice for thefurtherance of mere political and vindictive ends; they were denieddue process when the Office of the President railroaded the caseagainst them; the essence of procedural due process is embodied inthe basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard;and the manner by which the Office of the President issued theassailed decision was bereft of this real opportunity to be heard when

it relied solely on the misrepresentation of the respondent and withouttaking into consideration the actual facts as alleged by petitioners.

Petitioners posit that: the Office of the President committedgrave abuse of discretion in granting the reconstitution and re-opening of the Complaint for further proceedings despite failure of therespondent to comply with the mandate of Act. No. 3110, which isapplicable in supplementary character and despite his lack ofpersonality to initiate the same; no notice of loss was issued by theoffice of the clerk having custody of the records of the case D.C. No.

92-736and neither was such notice published in the Official Gazetteand in a newspaper of general circulation; respondent merely alleged,albeit wrongfully, that when case D.C. No. 92-736was forwarded tothe Board of Special Inquiry, no further proceedings were taken andthe records are nowhere to be found despite diligent effort exerted tolocate; this allegation cannot be given credence as the case D.C.No. 92-736 was forwarded to the Board of Special Inquiry and theBoard 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 compulsoryregistration as Chinese nationals and deportation proceedings; it is


12/21


fatal error on the part of the respondent to anchor his complaint onCommonwealth Act 613 since this law only deals with aliens and thepetitioners, being Filipino citizens, can never fall within the categoryof aliens; it is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excessof jurisdiction on the part of the Bureau of Immigration and of theOffice of the President to uphold the petition filed by the respondent;the re-opening of the case against the petitioners will put in jeopardytheir legally acquired and constitutionally guaranteed right, i.e., tocontinue enjoying their prerogatives as Filipino citizens, a right which

they acquired since birth.

In support of their prayer for the issuance of a temporaryrestraining order, petitioners basically argues that the continuation bythe Bureau of Immigration of its reconstitution of records and the re-opening of the case against them will work injustice to the petitionersand the people of Naga City as petitioner Jesse is serving them astheir duly elected local chief executive.

Respondent Tan counters that: the Office of the Presidentjudiciously and in consonance with the prevailing law andjurisprudence ruled that the reconstitution of records is proper; theissuance of the Decision dated 06 August 2007 sans petitioners'Reply Memorandum was the latter's fault and not of the Office of thePresident; the fifteen (15) day period for filing a reply memorandumas stated in the 16 August 2007 Order was inextendible and the filingof a motion for extension of time therefrom defies the Order with themotive to delay the resolution of the case and which respondent havedone for more than a decade; petitioners have no basis for claiming

denial of due process, much more, accusing the Office of thePresident of railroading the case; the submission of notice of lossand publication are not necessary in the instant case; Act 3110, asstated by the Office of the President, applies only to judicialproceedings; be that as it may, what is vital is that the records a quoare indeed missing which was affirmed and confirmed by the Board ofCommissioners when it granted respondent's petition forreconstitution; even petitioners, in their Manifestation and Motiondated 18 January 2008, stated that the Bureau of Immigration and

Deportation cannot issue certified true copies of some of the annexesin view of the process of reconstitution; and he has the legal standing


13/21


for the reconstitution of records as he is entitled to have access to therecords of the case which he initiated.

Respondent further maintains that: the Office of the Presidentcorrectly set aside the examination and assessment on whether ornot petitioners are Filipinos as the only issue presented before it isthe reconstitution of records; thus, the determination of petitioners'citizenship has not yet commenced; the Office of the President is nota trier of facts; the deceptions, misrepresentations and grossly

misleading asseverations of petitioners are too patent and tooflagrant to be ignored and hence, the instant case should bedismissed outright; among these deceptions, are: (1) petitionersalluded to an alleged prior ruling that they were declared Filipinoswhen there is no final and executory finding of such sort; anyprevious rulings whether in favor of or against the petitioners have notyet reached the stage of finality and therefore no res judicata has yetensued; thus, petitioners cannot claim any vested right over anyruling in their favor; (2) petitioners fraudulently claim as a side issue

that when the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation considered thecase before the records were lost, then Commissioner Vercelesissued an Order dismissing the complaint filed by respondenthowever, the copy that was surprisingly supplied by petitioner wasnever authenticated, no evidence was produced that the same waspromulgated and that, herein respondent was never furnished suchcopy on or about the time when the Order was allegedly issued andpetitioners sprung such a copy only after his death, when he could nolonger confirm or deny that he issued said Order; (3) petitioners areclaiming that it was only Lim Teng who arrived aboard the vessel

Esmeralda on 02 April 1896 and that his grandparents arrived asmarried persons which allegations were different with Jesse'sadmission in his Verified Answer in the case ofFortuno v. Robredo;(4) the death certificate being claimed by petitioners is not a publicdocument; and (5) it is not the same death certificate presentedbefore the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation; (6) said deathcertificate was only issued forty (40) years after the death of thealleged 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 theirimmediate ascendants resided in the Philippines when said


14/21


ascendants did not obtain a declaration of residency in thePhilippines from the Captain General, which is required under theexisting laws at that time.

Respondent also asserts that: the petitioners are not entitled tothe injunctive relief that they are seeking from this Court and theinstant case should be dismissed for lack of merit; petitioners have noclear right to restraint the process of reconstituting the records; theywould not sustain damages by the simple process of reconstitution,

instead they would benefit therefrom, inasmuch as a definitive rulingon their citizenship would be arrived at; and petitioners must come tothe court with clean hands and not with misleading and deceptiveclaims.

The Petition is bereft of merit.

Stripped of verbiage, the only issue to be resolved in this caseis whether or not the Office of the President erred in directing the

Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to take immediate actionfor 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 toreproduce or replace records lost or destroyed so that said recordsmay be complete and court proceedings may continue from the pointor stage where said proceedings stopped due to the loss of therecords.40

The matter concerning petitioners' citizenship is not an issueto be passed upon or resolved by Us in the instant Petition but by theBureau of Immigration in D.C. No. 92-736. As aptly stressed by theOffice of the President, the controversy devolves solely upon theissue of reconstitution of the records in said D.C. No. 92-736. Thus,without reconstitution of the records in said deportation case whichwas filed against petitioners, no further proceedings can be had.

As found by the Office of the President, x x x the Board did notconduct any proceedings thereon as the records of the case


15/21


mysteriously disappeared and (c)omplainant was later informed ofthe missing records.41 The Board of Commissioners, in its Order42dated 18 December 2000, found that D.C. Case No. 92-736has longbeen pending before the Bureau of Immigration for quite sometime,thus, it granted the petition for reconstitution. Since respondent isthe complainant who initiated the filing of the Complaint against thepetitioners, and thereafter D.C. Case No. 92-736 was filed againstpetitioners, respondent has the personality to petition before theBureau of Immigration for the reconstitution of the missing records

thereof. The reconstitution is as much the duty of the prosecution asthe defense43 and the mysterious disappearance of the records is anevent which weighs equally against all. The said reconstitutioncannot be considered as a filing anew of the complaint but it is merelythe reproduction and replacement of the missing or lost records inD.C. Case No. 92-736.

Neither is the authenticity of the alleged Order44 dated 20 April1995 dismissing the case, supposedly solely issued by then

Immigration Commissioner Leandro Verceles, instead of by the Boardof Commissioners acting collectively, an issue for resolution in thisPetition. Precisely, the records of the deportation case filed againstpetitioners are missing and the same must be reconstituted so thatthe existence or non-existence of said Order can be properlyascertained in said D.C. Case No. 92-736. At any rate, it bearsnoting that absent any such proof of authenticity, the photocopy of the(Order) should be considered inadmissible and, hence, withoutprobative value.45 The sound reason behind this policy is to ensurethat 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 beexercised by the individual members of the Commission.46

Moreover, the 18 December 2006 Order of the Board ofCommissioners of the Bureau of Immigration refers only to thereconstitution of the records in D.C. Case No. 92-736 so that saidcase can be set for hearing on the merits. No final decision has, asyet, been rendered by the Board in said deportation case. It has

been held that in the deportation case, resort to court is proper onlyafter a decision is rendered by the Board of Commissioners of the


16/21


Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau is the best agency that can bestdetermine whether petitioners violated certain provisions of thePhilippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. In this jurisdiction,courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sounddiscretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation ofactivities coming under the special technical knowledge and trainingof such agencies. By reason of the special knowledge and expertiseof 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, ifnot finality, by the courts.47

Petitioners insist that respondent failed to comply with themandate of Act No. 3110 with respect to the notice and publicationrequirement.

We are not persuaded. Act No. 3110,48 is the general law thatgoverns 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 partof the records of judicial proceedings on file in the office of theclerk of a Court of First Instance, said officer shall send a noticeby registered mail to the Secretary of Justice, the Attorney-General,the Director of Lands, the Chief of the General Land RegistrationOffice, the clerk of the Supreme Court, the judge of the province,the register of deeds of the province, the provincial fiscal, and alllawyers who may be interested, stating the date on which such fire

or public calamity occurred and whether the loss or destruction wastotal or partial, and giving a brief list of the proceedings not affectedin 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 ageneral notice which shall be addressed and sent by registeredmail to the lawyers and officers mentioned in the preceding section,and to such other persons as might be interested, advising them ofthe destruction of the records, with a brief list of the proceedings notaffected in case the destruction was partial, and of the time fixed by

this Act for the reconstitution of the destroyed records.


17/21


This notice shall also be published in the Official Gazetteand in one of the newspapers most widely read in the province,once a week, for four consecutive weeks. (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, it can be gleaned from the foregoing, that the noticeand publication requirements of Act 3110 pertain only to judicialreconstitution of records and not to the reconstitution of records of apending deportation case before the Bureau of Immigration.

Petitioners asseverate that they were denied due process andthat 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 anOrder50 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'smemorandum, their reply memorandum, otherwise, the case will bedecided on the basis of available records. In the same Order, hereinpetitioners were also ordered to submit, within 15 days from receiptof said Order, simultaneously with the submission of their replymemorandum, the draft of the decision that they seek from saidOffice, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law upon whichthey are based. Petitioners, instead of filing their ReplyMemorandum, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File ReplyMemorandum and Draft Decision51 dated 26 July 2007. Thus, theOffice of the President rendered the assailed Decision dated 06

August 2007 on the basis of the available records. Aggrieved by thisDecision, petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration andSupplement to the Motion for Reconsideration52. The Office of thePresident denied the same in the assailed Resolution53 dated 04December 2007.

Procedural due process, in gist, is the necessity for notice and

an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Its essenceis encapsulated in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades:


18/21


"Strike but hear me first." Thus, as long as a party is given theopportunity to defend his/her interests in due course, the party wouldhave no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard thatmakes up the essence of due process.54

Thus, there was no denial of due process as self-servinglyclaimed by the petitioners. Petitioners even filed their Motion forReconsideration 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 rulingcomplained of, they cannot claim denial of due process of law.56

From the foregoing disquisitions, We find that no error wascommitted by the Office of the President in ordering theCommissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to take immediate actionfor the reconstitution of the records of D.C. Case No. 92-736.Inasmuch as petitioners are not entitled to the relief demanded intheir 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 andResolution dated 04 December 2007 of the Office of the President inO.P. Case No. 07-F-199 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGOAssociate Justice


19/21


WE CONCUR:

MARIO L. GUARIA IIIAssociate Justice

RICARDO R. ROSARIOAssociate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it ishereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision werereached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of the Court.

MARIO L. GUARIA IIIAssociate Justice

Chairman, Fourteenth Division


20/21


1 Rollo, pp. 6-432 Id., at pp. 44-463 Id., at pp. 47-484 Id., at pp. 517-5565 Id., at pp. 723-7316 Id., at pp. 514 (dorsal side)7 Id., at p. 7328 Id., at pp. 49-569 Id., at p. 4410 Id., at pp. 638-64411 Id., at pp. 645-64612 Id., at p. 4413 Id., at pp. 57-6014 Id., at pp. 61-6515 Id., at pp. 310-31516 Id., at pp. 316-32317 Id., at pp. 79-8218 Id., at pp. 324-32919 Id., at p. 33020 Id., at pp. 331-34021 Id., at pp. 341-35522 Id., at p. 8323 Id., at pp. 84-8624 Id., at p. 8725 Id., at pp. 439-44126 Id., at p. 1627 Id., at pp. 88-9428 Id., at p. 37129 Id., at pp. 371-37630 Id., at pp. 377-39131 Id., at pp. 95-10032 Id., at pp. 392-42633 Id., at pp. 44-4634 Id., at pp. 45-4635 Id., at p. 10136 Id., at p. 2037 Id., at pp. 47-4838 Ibid.39 Id., at pp. 21, 26, 30, 3240 Juco v. Heirs of Tomas Siy Chung Fu, G.R. No. 150233, 16 February 2005,

451 SCRA 464, 47241 Rollo, p. 4442 Id., at pp.439-44143 Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 152823 & 152824, 23 September 2003,

411 SCRA 611, 61944 Rollo, p. 83


21/21


45 Cf. Office of the Ombudsman v. Carmencita Coronel, G.R. No. 164460, 27June 2006

46 Domingo v. Scheer, G.R. No. 154745, 29 January 2004, 421 SCRA 468, 48347 Dwikarna v. Domingo, G.R. No. 153454, 07 July 2004, 433 SCRA 748, 754-

75548 An Act to Provide an Adequate Procedure for the Reconstitution of the

Records of Pending Judicial Proceedings and Books, Documents, and Files ofthe Office of the Register of Deeds, Destroyed by Fire or Other PublicCalamities, and For Other Purposes

49 Loreta Agustin Chong, etc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R.No. 148280, 10 July 2007

50 Rollo, pp. 557-55851 Id., at pp. 559-56252 Id., at p. 56353 Id., at pp. 47-4854 Rodolfo M. Cuenca v. Hon. Alberto P. Atas, et. al., G.R. No. 146214, 05

October 200755 Rollo, pp. 563-57356 Amarillo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 145007-08, 28 January 2003, 396

SCRA 434, 441