MARTINIANO P. VIVO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND RICARDO P. PORTUGAL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECURITY OFFICER, DETENTION STATION, BUREAU OF I…

In these two cases, both of which stand submitted for decision by
this Court, the Solicitor General, representing the Commissioner of Immigration
and the Security Officer or Overseer of the Immigration Detention Station,
launches a two-pronged attack – certiorari and appeal – against the lower
court’s decision of April 30, 1965
rendered in the case below.^[1] That decision granted Corazon Perez Pitcock’s petition for habeas corpus, and ordered the Commissioner of Immi­gration, the Overseer of
the Immigration Detention Station and/or any officer acting by authority of
said Commissioner, to release her husband, Leonard E. Pitcock,
Jr., an American citizen, from custody within twenty-four hours from receipt of
a copy of the decision, without pre­judice to placing the said Pitcock under the surveillance of immigration authorities,
in such form and manner as may be reasonable and/or adequate to insure that he
keep the peace and be available if and when the Government becomes ready to
deport him; and without prejudice to requiring a bond under Section 40 of
Commonwealth Act 613 to assure Pitcock’s surrender
upon orders of the Commissioner.

The habeas corpus case, filed below on April 27, 1965, came about because of
the arrest and apprehension on April
12, 1965 by NBI authori­ties of Leonard E. Pitcock,
Jr. and his subsequent detention by immi­gration authorities.  These were upon a warrant of deportation
issued in pursuance of an order of deportation by the Board of Commissioners
rendered on June 7, 1963,
which found that at the time of Pitcock’s entry, he
was not lawfully admissible in this country. 
This order of deportation became final and executory
upon denial by said Board on July 12,
1963 of a reconsideration of said order.

From the facts of record, Pitcock was,
on March 17, 1960, ordered
deported for overstaying the limited period allowed him to remain in this
country as a temporary visitor.  On April 8, 1960, after he was allowed an
extension of stay, he left the country voluntarily.  But, on June 12, 1960, he was able to reenter.  On February
28, 1962, he again left the country voluntarily, but two days later
– March 2, 1962 – came back,
a temporary visitor.  On April 20, 1962, he was about to leave
when he was arrested at the airport by the Pasay police authorities to answer
criminal charges for slight physical injuries and oral defamation.  He posted bail for his provisional
liberty.  Later on, he voluntarily
surrendered to the immigration authorities when the former issued a warrant for
his arrest for deportation purposes.  He
was released from custody upon his filing of a P2,000-cash bond and a
P5,000-surety bond.  Then came, as stated
earlier, his arrest and detention on April
12, 1965 at a time when the order for his deportation became final
and executory. 
On April 14, 1965, Pitcock, then under detention, requested the Commis­sioner
to allow him to depart voluntarily.  The
latter, however, required Pitcock first to secure the
dismissal of the criminal charges against him. 
Hence, the habeas corpus case filed below, in which
Corazon Perez Pitcock averred, amongst others, that
her husband was not deportable because there was already an implied waiver of
his exclusion when he was granted an extension of stay before his departure on April 8, 1960, and when he was allowed
to reenter the Philippines
on June 12, 1960.

In rendering the decision aforesaid in the habeas corpus
case, the lower court came to the conclusion that Leonard E. Pitcock, Jr., detained by the immigration authorities
preparatory to deportation, should not be deported until the final disposition
of pending criminal cases.^[2]
against him and until the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction
issued in Civil Case 50339 in another branch of the court,^[3]
restraining the immigration authorities from ordering his arrest and
deportation.

The two cases now at bar are offshoots of the proceedings below.

One is a direct appeal therefrom
(L-24525) by the immigration authorities, thru the Solicitor General, seeking
to reverse the lower court’s judgment of April 30, 1965 hereinbefore mentioned.  The appeal is based essentially upon the
grounds that:  (1) Pitcock
should be deported even with the pendency of the
criminal cases against him because the execution of a final order of
deportation takes precedence over other processes and proceedings of this
Republic as it is a supreme and para­mount act of the State, an act of
self-preservation of a national scale, predicated on the finding that an
alien’s continued presence here is inimical to its interest, welfare and
safety; and the interest of any party in any pending criminal case must be
deemed subordinate thereto and must yield to such overriding necessity; and (2)
the writ of prelim­inary injunction issued in Civil Case 50339 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, heretofore adverted to, restraining the Commissioner
of Immigration from arresting and deporting Pitcock,
no longer subsists, because it was, on June 5, 1962, dissolved and for the
reason that Civil Case 50339 had since been dismissed without prejudice
“for lack of interest to prosecute” and that reconsideration of the
order of dismissal was denied on July 13, 1963.

The other case (L-24510) is an original action in this Court
lodged likewise by the immigration authorities thru the Solicitor General, for
certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.  Petitioners, in this second case, contend
that the lower court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the habeas
corpus case because the detention of Pitcock,
preparatory to exclusion or expulsion pursuant to a final order of depor­tation,
is valid and the courts have no authority to assert jurisdiction unless there
is abuse of power or legal error or lack of a fair hearing, and none exists in Pitcock’s case. 
Petitioners also assail the validity of the lower court’s two orders of
May 3, 1965, the first fixing a P5,000-bond for Pitcock’s
immediate release pending proceedings on appeal; and the second ordering Pitcock’s immediate release from custody – the P5,000-bond
having been filed – upon receipt of the order of release; and another order of
May 5, 1965, directing the release of Pitcock within
thirty-six hours from receipt thereof. 
The government assault on these three orders just mentioned is planted
upon its averment that upon the perfection of an appeal in the habeas corpus
case below, which was on the same day the decision therein was rendered (April
30, 1965), the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case, which jurisdiction was instantly transferred to this
Court to which the appeal was made.^[4]

On May 6, 1965,
this Court issued a temporary restraining order in the second case (L-24510)
effective until May 12, 1965
enjoining respondents therein from enforcing or implementing the decision dated
April 30, 1965, the two
orders dated May 3, 1965,
and the order of May 5, 1965.

Then, at the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on May 12, 1965 in L-24510, the parties
agreed that Leonard E. Pitcock, Jr. shall depart from
the country on or before May 22, 1965.  On the same date, May 12, 1965, this Court resolved to continue the
restraining order until May 22, 1965.

Upon the Solicitor General’s motion, Pitcock’s
passports were withdrawn from the evidence submitted in the case (L-24510) and
replaced with photographic copies.

On June 4, 1965,
the Solicitor General manifested to this Court in L-24510 and L-24525 that
Leonard E. Pitcock, Jr. “had left the country on
May 22, 1965, in accordance
with the decision of the Board of Commissioners, and the warrant of
deportation, both dated June 7, 1963.”
A similar manifestation was also filed on September 17, 1965 for the two cases (L-24510 and L-24525)
by counsel for respondents Leonard E. Pitcock, Jr.
and Corazon Perez Pitcock in L-24510, also counsel
for petitioner-appellee Corazon Perez Pitcock in L-24525.

In his memorandum in lieu of oral arguments filed on September 2, 1965 in L-24510, the
Solicitor General stated that the case “has become moot and academic”
in view of Pitcock’s departure.

These two cases should be dismissed.  With the departure of Leonard E. Pitcock, Jr., the subject of these two proceedings, the
question of the legality of his detention preparatory to deportation becomes
moot and academic.  Any decision on the
merits of either case would be of no practical value or effect.  Indeed, it would be idle cere­mony if we rule
upon the merits that Pitcock’s detention was illegal
and, therefore, he should be released from custody.  For, he is no longer detained nor in
custody.  Useless, too, would be a
reverse holding that Pitcock’s detention is valid and
that he is deportable.  For, Pitcock is now beyond the legal processes of this country.^[5]

For the reasons given, the habeas corpus
case now on appeal in this Court (L-24525), and the original petition for
certiorari and pro­hibition (L-24510) filed in connection with that habeas
corpus case, are hereby dismissed.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Special Proceedings 60696, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII,
entitled “In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Leonard E. Pitcock; Corazon Perez Pitcock,
petitioner, vs. Hon. Martiniano P. Vivo, Commissioner of Immigration and Atty. Ricardo Portugal, Over­seer, Immigration Detention Station,
respondents.”

^[2]
Criminal Cases 16919 and 16920, Municipal Court of Pasay City, for slight physical
injuries and oral defamation, respectively, upon the complaint of a certain
Jack Lerner.  Pitcock
was convicted by said court and
sentenced to pay fines of P200 and P50, respectively.  On August
20, 1963, he appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay),
docketed as Criminal Cases 6157-P and 6158-P, respectively.  These cases have already been dismissed.

^[3]
Civil Case 50339, Court of First Instance of
Manila, Branch XVII, entitled “Leonard E. Pitcock,
Jr., petitioner, vs. The Honorable Board of Commissioners of the Bureau
of Immigration and Hon. Agapito R. Conchu, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration, res­pondents,”
a case of certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, to compel the
respondents to extend petitioner Pitcock’s stay in
the Philippines until the termination of the criminal cases against him.

^[4]
The lower court passed upon this question in its order of May 5, 1965, with the ruling that said court
retains jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases, despite a notice
of appeal already filed, so long as the
records of the case have not yet been transmitted to the appellate court.

^[5]
Lewin vs. The Deportation Board, L-16872, January 31, 1962.