CHAN SHU LOU ALIAS TAN WEE CHANG, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSI…

Chan Shu Lou alias Tan Wee Chang, a Chinese national, was admitted
to the Philippines in 1932 as a permanent resident. He was issued on
July 12, 1950 alien certificate of registration No. A-17127 and on
January 20, 1948 an immigration certificate of registration No. 28010.
During his sojourn in the Philippines he visited his family three
times: in 1939, 1949 and 1953. This case relates to his last visit.

On said last visit Chan left the Philippines for Hongkong, carrying
with him Re-entry Permit No. 71014 issued in Manila on October 29, 1953
which was valid up to December 29, 1953. Chan however did not return to
the Philippines within the period stated in his re-entry permit.

Sometime in 1961 Chan applied for re-entry to the Philippines as a
returning resident, alleging that he could not make use of his re-entry
permit for the reason that after arrival in Hongkong he suffered from
swollen feet and stomach trouble; that later his wife and children also
got sick, leaving him financially destitute; and that he entered
employment for the purpose of raising money for his transportation back
to the Philippines. His application was granted and he arrived in the
Philippines on October 29, 1961 as a returning resident pursuant to
Section 13(e) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940.

Immediately after his arrival the Board of Special Inquiry conducted
a formal investigation of Chan’s case. On September 20, 1961, said
Board admitted him as a properly documented returning resident. The
decision of the Board of Special Inquiry was passed around among the
members of the Board of Commissioners, who wrote the word “noted”
together with their initials signifying approval of said decision. Copy
of the decision was transmitted to Chan by the Secretary of the Board
of Commissioners informing him of the affirmance of said decision by
the Commissioners.

On October 6, 1962 Chan received a letter dated October 4, 1962
signed by Acting Associate Commissioner Virgilio N. Gaston stating:

“It will be appreciated if you could call at this Office in connection with a pending case (I.C. No. 61-3337-C) concerning you within three days from your receipt hereof.” (Underscoring supplied)

Chan complied with the request by reporting, together with his
lawyer, to the office of Associate Commissioner Gaston who wanted to be
clarified about his means of support.

On November 17, 1962 Chan received another letter dated September 4,
1962, this time from the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners
transmitting to him a copy of a decision dated September 4, 1962 of the
Board of Commissioners reversing the decision of the Board of Special
Inquiry dated September 20, 1961.

This decision, which considered Chan’s stay in Hongkong from 1953 to
1961 where he entered employment to be an abandonment of his residence
in the Philippines, was received in the records section of the Bureau
of Immigration on November 14, 1962 and mailed to Chan on November 16,
1962.

On September 4, 1962, the same date appearing on the decision,
Acting Commissioner Martiniano P. Vivo, issued an order for Chan’s
exclusion and deportation from the Philippines. Whereupon, Chan filed
on November 26, 1962 in the Court of First Instance of Manila a
petition for certiorari with injunction seeking to declare null and
void the decision of the Board of Commissioners dated September 4, 1962
and to enjoin Commissioner Vivo from enforcing his order of exclusion
and deportation.

The court granted preliminary injunction and on October 16, 1963 rendered the following judgment:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring
null and void the decision of the respondent board of commissioners
dated September 4, 1962 in I.C. No. 61-3337-C, and all proceedings
taken thereunder and pursuant thereto, with costs against the
respondents. The writ of preliminary injunction issued in this case is
hereby made permanent.”

declaring the decision of the Board of Commissioners dated September
4, 1962 null and void for having been issued beyond the one-year period
provided for in Section 27(b) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940.

Martiniano P. Vivo, et al., appealed to this Court.

The issue is whether or not the decision dated September 4, 1962 is valid.

Section 27(b) of Commonwealth Act 613 as amended by Republic Act
503, otherwise known as the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940,
provides:

“(b) xxx The decision of any two members of the
board shall prevail and shall be final unless reversed on appeal by the
Board of Commissioners as hereafter stated, or, in the absence of an
appeal, unless reversed by the Board of Commissioners after a review by
it, motu proprio of the entire proceedings within one year from the
promulgation of said decision. xxx”

The lower court found as a fact that the decision of the Board of
Commissioners dated September 4, 1962 was not really rendered and
issued on said date but on a later date; and that said antedating was
made for the purpose of complying with the one-year limitation provided
for in Section 27(b) of Commonwealth Act 613. Considering that the
decision in question was received only on November 14, 1962 in the
records section of the same office where the Board of Commissioners
holds office and mailed to Chan only on November 16, 1962, more than
two months after the date appearing thereon; and, considering further
that one month after September 4, 1962 Commissioner Gaston summoned
Chan to his office in connection with his pending case thereby
implying that on October 4, 1962 the case had not yet been finally
decided, this Court is not inclined to disturb the aforesaid factual
findings of the court a quo.

Appellants however maintain that assuming for purposes of argument
that the decision was rendered after the lapse of the one-year period
provided for in Section 27(b) of Commonwealth Act 613, it would still
be valid because (1) the period of limitation in Section 27(b) is
merely directory; and (2) there is no res judicata in immigration cases, citing Ong Se Lun v. Board of Immigration Commissioners, 95 Phil. 785.

The view that the one-year period in Section 27(b) within which the
decision of the Board of Special Inquiry can be reversed by the Board
of Commissioners is merely directory would tend to give no meaning to
such a provision – as if it were not there at all. Such a result could
not have been intended by the National Assembly. For, why provide for a
period of limitation if it were not supposed to be binding? Moreover,
the law expressly states that the decision of the Board of Special
Inquiry shall be final unless reversed by the Board of Commissioners
within one year from promulgation of the same. Such decision is stamped
with the seal of finality from the moment of its promulgation, subject
only to the power of reversal of the Board of Commissioners to be
exercised within a specified time. Beyond said time, without a reversal
seasonably intervening, the decision remains final. However, the
Government is not left without a remedy if an alien admitted by the
Board of Special Inquiry turns out to be undesirable. It could still
resort to deportation proceedings provided for by existing laws.

Furthermore, a contrary interpretation of the provision in question
would not only work an injustice to aliens who take pains and spend
considerable time, effort and money presenting their case before the
Board of Special Inquiry, but also would keep the power of reversal of
the Board of Commissioners hanging, like the sword of Damocles, over
the heads of said aliens thereby opening the way to blackmail and graft
and corruption, not to mention the consequent undermining of the
stability of the decisions of administrative bodies like the Board of
Special Inquiry.

Our ruling in Ong Se Lun v. Board of Immigration Commissioners, 95
Phil. 785, cited by appellants, has no application in this case. There,
the Board of Special Inquiry was declared to have acted beyond its
power when it changed the status of some aliens from “temporary
visitor” to “permanent resident”, hence its decision was null and void.
Logically, being null and void, a decision could not become final nor
could it bind the Government. In this case, the authority of the Board
of Special Inquiry under Section 27(b) of Commonwealth Act 613 to
determine whether or not Chan would be admitted as a properly
documented alien with the status of “permanent resident” has not been
questioned.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.