TOGUAY, Paul Jeffrey U.

2019-80129
Block 4
Topic: Powers of Administrative Bodies;

WHEREFORE, G.R. Nos. 95122-23 is DISMISSED for lack of merit; G.R. Nos. 95612-13 is
hereby GRANTED and respondent William Gatchalian is declared a Filipino citizen.
Petitioners are hereby permanently enjoined from continuing with the deportation
proceedings docketed as DC No. 90-523 for lack of jurisdiction over respondent
Gatchalian, he being a Filipino citizen; Civil Cases No. 90-54214 and 3431-V-90 pending
before respondent judges are likewise DISMISSED. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Citation G.R. Nos. 95122-23

Date May 31, 1991

Petitioner BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND

DEPORTATION), BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, COMMISSIONER ANDREA D.
DOMINGO, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JORGE V. SARMIENTO, ACTING
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER REGINO R. SANTIAGO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, ESTANISLAO CANTA, LEO MAGAHOM and BENJAMIN
KALAW

Respondent HON. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, Presiding Judge, RTC Manila, Branch 29, WILLIAM
T. GATCHALIAN,

PRINCIPLES/ 1. As a rule, where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of

DOCTRINES certain administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that such
bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of rank and
stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter.

2. Under the Administrative Code, the decision of an agency like the Bureau
of Immigration should be subject to review by the court specified by the
statute or in the absence thereof, it is subject to review by any court of
competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the
Rules of Court.

3. Judicial intervention, however, should be granted only in cases where the

"claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the claim is correct. In other words, the remedy should be
 allowed only on sound discretion of a competent court in a proper
proceeding.

BIDIN, J.:

FACTS:
In 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized
by the Bureau of Immigration as a native-born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of
his natural mother, Marciana Gatchalian. Before the Citizenship Evaluation Board,
Santiago Gatchalian testified that he has five (5) children with his wife Chu Gim Tee,
among them was Francisco Gatchalian, the father of William Gatchalian. In 1961, after
investigation, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 rendered a decision, admitting William
Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino citizens. As a consequence thereof, William
Gatchalian was issued Identification Certificate Number by the immigration authorities.
In 1962, the Secretary of Justice issued a memorandum order, directing the Board of
Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the
entrant was a Philippine citizen. Among those cases was that of William and others.
Afterwhich, the new Board of Commissioners, after a review motu proprio of the
proceedings had in the Board of Special Inquiry, reversed the decision of the latter and
ordered the exclusion of, among others, respondent Gatchalian. This resulted in a
deportation case against Gatchalian and teh issuance of the warrant of exclusion against
them.
In 1973, Gatchalian filed a motion for re-hearing with the Board of Special Inquiry
where the deportation case against them was assigned. The Board of Special Inquiry
recommended to the then Acting Commissioner the reversal of the previous Board
decision and the recall of the warrants of arrest issued therein, which acted on the
recommendation in favor of Gatchalian.

In 1990, the acting director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) wrote the
Secretary of Justice recommending that respondent Gatchalian along with the other
applicants covered by the warrant of exclusion be charged with violation of the
Immigration Act of 1940. The Immigration issued a mission order commanding the arrest
of respondent William Gatchalian. The Gatchalian appeared before the immigration and
was released on the same day upon posting a P200,000.00 cash bond.
 William Gatchalian, among others, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The public petitioners moved
to dismiss the case because the RTC has no jurisdiction over the Board of Commissioners
and/or the Board of Special Inquiry. But the RTC denied the motion to dismiss.

William’s wife and children filed before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela for
injunction with writ of preliminary injunction. The complaint alleged, among others, that
petitioners acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in the institution of deportation
proceedings against William. The RTC Valenzuela issued a temporary restraining order
against the deportation case.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the
deportation case of Gatchalian- The RTC

RULING:
1. The Regional Trial Court has jurisidction over the case.

a. As a rule, where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of certain

administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-
equal with the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of rank and stature, and logically,
beyond the control of the latter.

Under the Administrative Code, the decision of an agency like the Bureau of
Immigration should be subject to review by the court specified by the statute or in
the absence thereof, it is subject to review by any court of competent jurisdiction
in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court.

In the case at bar, the Bureau of Immigration (or CID) is not among those
quasi-judicial agencies specified by law whose decisions, orders, and resolutions
are directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. As the Bureau of Immigration is
not of equal rank as the RTC, its decisions may be appealable to, and may be
reviewed through a special civil action for certiorari by, the RTC.
 Thus, the competent court which could properly take cognizance of the
proceedings instituted by respondent Gatchalian would nonetheless be the
Regional Trial Court and not the Court of Appeals in view of Sec. 21 (1), BP 129,
which confers upon the former jurisdiction over actions for prohibition
concurrently with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

b. Although the doctrine of primary jurisdiction of petitioners Board of

Commissioners over deportation proceedings is, therefore, not without exception,
Judicial intervention, however, should be granted only in cases where the "claim of
citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
claim is correct. In other words, the remedy should be allowed only on sound
discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding

Xxxx nothing follows xxxx