ANG LIONG, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

Ang Liong versus Commissioner of Immigration

The Case

This is Ang Liong versus the Commissioner of Immigration, a case about the finality of a cash bond posted for the temporary admission of aliens. Ang Liong, as bondsman, posted cash bonds for the temporary stay of his wife and son, who had been admitted as temporary visitors. When the visitors failed to depart on the date fixed by the Commissioner, the Commissioner declared the bonds forfeited in favor of the Government and demanded new bonds. Ang Liong went to court to stop the forfeiture. The case matters because it teaches that the conditions of an immigration bond are contractual undertakings that bind the bondsman, and that no other official, not even the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, may alter, vary, or modify them.

Procedural History

Ang Liong filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Immigration before the Court of First Instance of Manila. He prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the Commissioner from forfeiting the cash bonds, from requiring new bonds in the same amounts, and from carrying out the order of arrest and confinement of the visitors; and, after hearing, for judgment declaring the forfeiture null and void, making the injunction final, and awarding moral damages and attorney's fees. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint. Ang Liong appealed that judgment directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Ang Liong applied to the Commissioner of Immigration for the temporary admission of his wife, Ong Siu, and his son, Ang Hua, under Section 9 of the Philippine Immigration Act. On 27 June 1955 he filed cash bonds totaling 14,000 pesos to guarantee the visitors' faithful compliance with the terms and conditions of their temporary stay. The wife and son arrived from Hongkong on 1 August 1955 and were granted three months of temporary stay, from 1 August to 1 November 1955.

On 1 October 1955, before the original period expired, counsel for Ang Liong asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, through the Commissioner, for a three-month extension. On 7 November 1955 the Commissioner reminded Ang Liong that the authorized stay had expired on 1 November, required him to effect the visitors' departure not later than 12 November, and enclosed the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs' advice that the mere filing of a petition for extension should not be a reason to allow visitors to stay beyond the period actually authorized. Ang Liong asked for an extension to 30 November; the Commissioner denied it on 10 November. On 11 November Ang Liong again asked for a few days of grace and promised not to ask for further extension, assuring the Commissioner that the bonds could be confiscated if the visitors failed to depart. On 14 November the Commissioner granted an extension up to 19 November within which to cause their departure.

On 16 November, however, counsel for the two visitors asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for a three-month extension, and on 17 November the Secretary authorized it, subject to conditions. On 22 November the Commissioner advised Ang Liong of that grant but declared the bonds forfeited in favor of the Government for violation of their terms and conditions, in asking for extension of the temporary stay and in failing to depart on 19 November, and required new bonds within 48 hours. Further requests for time were partly granted, an additional bond of 3,000 pesos was filed, and the two visitors finally departed on 7 January 1956.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commissioner of Immigration was justified in declaring the cash bonds forfeited in favor of the Government.
• Whether or not the extensions sought from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the extension granted by him, relieved the bondsman from liability on the bonds.
• Whether or not the Secretary for Foreign Affairs may admit aliens for temporary stay or extend the period authorized by the Commissioner of Immigration.

Applicable Provisions

Section 40, paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (1) of Commonwealth Act Number 613 provides:

The Commissioner of Immigration shall have the power to exact bonds in such amounts and containing such conditions as he may prescribe to control and regulate the admission into, and departure from, the Philippines of aliens applying for temporary admission.

This is the source of the Commissioner's power to exact the bonds and to fix their conditions, which the bondsman accepts when he files them.

The cash bonds filed by Ang Liong embodied, among others, the following conditions:

That the undersigned, with full knowledge that ONG SIU is a temporary visitor whose authorized stay in this country is limited only up to and including 3 months, does hereby undertake that said ONG SIU will actually depart from the Philippines on or before said date so specified, or within such period, as in his discretion, the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative may properly allow.

This undertaking to secure departure is the very obligation whose breach justified the forfeiture.

That the undersigned hereby guarantees that no request for extension of the original authorized stay of three months will be filed by him, the alien himself or herself or any other person in his or her behalf.

This guarantee was broken when a request for extension of the original authorized stay was filed in behalf of the visitors.

That breach of any of the conditions above-mentioned shall entitle the Commissioner of Immigration to declare this cash bond or part thereof forfeited, but shall not release the undersigned from the obligation to produce said ONG SIU for such action as may be taken against him or her.

This clause expressly authorizes the forfeiture the Commissioner decreed.

Section 47 of the same Act provides that, when public interest so warrants, the President of the Philippines may:

admit, as non-immigrants, aliens not otherwise provided for by this Act, who are coming for temporary period only, under such conditions as he may prescribe.

This shows that the power to admit aliens for temporary stay is lodged elsewhere, not in the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commissioner was justified in declaring the bonds forfeited. The conditions of the bonds were violated because, instead of departing on 19 November 1955, the date set by the Commissioner, a request for a three-month extension of the temporary stay was filed in behalf of the visitors. Ang Liong's argument that the extensions were not violative of the bond conditions did not alter the fact that the visitors failed to depart on the date set, and for that reason the forfeiture was justified.

On the second issue, the Court held that the grant by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of another three months did not relieve the bondsman from liability. His undertakings in the bonds were contractual, and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs cannot alter, vary, or modify them.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is not authorized to admit aliens into the Philippines for temporary stay, or to extend the period authorized by the Commissioner of Immigration. Under Section 3 of Commonwealth Act Number 613, the Commissioner is the administrative head of the Bureau of Immigration, in charge of the administration of all laws relating to the immigration of aliens. The Cabinet authority given to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to act upon requests for extension beyond three months did not deprive the Commissioner of his power to declare a bond forfeited for breach of its terms or conditions, and did not relieve the bondsman from liability.

Doctrine

An immigration cash bond is a contract. Its terms and conditions bind the bondsman, and breach of any condition entitles the Commissioner of Immigration to declare the bond forfeited in favor of the Government. The power to exact bonds and to prescribe their conditions belongs to the Commissioner of Immigration under Section 40 of Commonwealth Act Number 613, and the power to admit aliens for temporary stay belongs to the President under Section 47, exercised through the Commissioner. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs has no authority to admit aliens for temporary stay or to extend the period authorized by the Commissioner, and cannot alter, vary, or modify the contractual undertakings in the bond. A grant of extension by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs does not excuse the bondsman from liability for breach of the bond conditions.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, with costs against Ang Liong. The Commissioner of Immigration prevailed.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the conditions of an immigration bond are contractual, and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs cannot alter, vary, or modify them. Examiners use this case to test the scope of the Commissioner of Immigration's power over bonds and temporary admission, and the rule that a bondsman is liable for breach of the bond conditions even when another official grants an extension.