SHIU SHUN MAN, ALIAS LOO BON, ALIAS LOO SON BON, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. EMILIO L. GALANG, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

Shiu Shun Man versus Galang

The Case

This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction brought by Shiu Shun Man, also known as Loo Bon, a Chinese citizen admitted to the Philippines as a temporary visitor and later as a pre-arranged employee, against the Commissioner of Immigration. Loo Bon asked the Court of First Instance of Manila to stop the Commissioner from deporting him and from confiscating the ten thousand peso cash bond posted by his father, Loo Tek. The case matters because it fixes the rule that a false statement on civil status knowingly made under oath in an immigration matter is a ground for deportation, and that the admission bond may be forfeited when the alien overstays his authorized period.

Procedural History

The Commissioner of Immigration issued a decision on April 4, 1957 ordering the deportation of Loo Bon and his father Loo Tek. That decision became final and executory, and a warrant of deportation was issued on July 1, 1957. Upon rehearing, the Commissioner dismissed the charge against Loo Tek. Loo Bon then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila. On November 27, 1959, the trial court rendered a decision declaring null and void the warrant of deportation and the order confiscating the bond. The Commissioner of Immigration appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court.

Facts

Loo Bon arrived in the Philippines on July 23, 1955 and was admitted as a temporary visitor upon the filing of a ten thousand peso cash bond posted by his father, Loo Tek. Upon application, his status was later changed to that of pre-arranged employee, and he was authorized to stay as such until April 30, 1957.

In the investigation by the Board of Special Inquiry on July 28, 1955, Loo Bon deliberately declared under oath that he was single. On August 26, 1955, in his sworn application for an Alien Certificate of Registration, he again stated that he was single and had no children. After securing the change of category, he applied for correction of his civil status from single to married. Investigation proved that he had in fact been married in China in 1948 and had three children with his wife, Ng He Chiok. His father Loo Tek was also charged for having stated in the sworn application for pre-arranged employment, and in his testimony, that his son was single and childless.

The deportation decision became final and executory, and a warrant of deportation was issued on July 1, 1957. On July 8, 1957, the Commissioner ordered Loo Bon to leave within three days, warning that the bond would be confiscated upon failure to do so. On July 15, 1957, the Commissioner wrote Loo Tek that the whole bond was forfeited in favor of the Government for violation of its conditions. Loo Bon then brought the prohibition proceedings.

Issues

• Whether or not Loo Bon may be deported for knowingly making a false statement under oath regarding his civil status in an immigration matter.
• Whether or not the Commissioner of Immigration properly ordered the confiscation of the ten thousand peso admission bond posted by Loo Tek.

Applicable Provisions

Section 45 (f) of Commonwealth Act Number 613, as amended, the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, provides:

Any individual who in any immigration matter shall knowingly make under oath any false statement or representations shall be guilty of an offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand pesos, and imprisoned for not more than two years, and deported if he is an alien.

This is the provision under which Loo Bon's false declarations were held to be a ground for deportation.

Section 40 (a) of the same Act, as amended, states the purpose behind the admission bond:

To control and regulate the admission into, and departure from, the Philippines of aliens applying for temporary admission.

This provision supports the forfeiture of the bond when the alien violates its conditions by overstaying.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the record clearly establishes that while Loo Bon was a married man with three children, he stated under oath before the immigration authorities that he was single. His explanation that he believed his marriage in China was not recognized here was not a good reason; he should have given his true civil status and left the Philippine authorities to determine its effect under our laws. There was also evidence that his purpose in declaring himself single before the Philippine Consulate in Hong Kong was to simplify his application to come to the Philippines, so he could not claim good faith. Having knowingly made the false statement, he is liable for deportation.

The Court further agreed that the civil status of an alien applicant for temporary admission is a matter that could influence the exercise of discretion by the immigration authorities, considering the possibility of a future change of category to permanent resident or pre-arranged employee.

On the second issue, the Court held that it was proper for the Commissioner to order the confiscation of the bond, since Loo Bon violated its conditions by extending his stay beyond the authorized period. The change of status from temporary visitor to pre-arranged employee did not alter the nature of his stay as temporary, because even as a pre-arranged employee he was supposed to leave not later than April 30, 1957.

Doctrine

An alien who in any immigration matter knowingly makes under oath a false statement or representation is liable for deportation under Section 45 (f) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. Good faith is negated where the evidence shows the false declaration was made to simplify the alien's application to enter the country. The civil status of an applicant for temporary admission is a matter that may influence the exercise of discretion by immigration authorities. The admission bond may be confiscated when the alien violates its conditions by overstaying, and a change of status to pre-arranged employee does not alter the temporary nature of the stay.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court, dissolved the writ of prohibition it had issued, and ordered costs against Loo Bon.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a knowingly false statement under oath in any immigration matter is a ground for deportation, and the admission bond may be forfeited upon overstaying. Examiners use this case to test the grounds for deportation of aliens and the confiscation of admission bonds.