G.R. No. L-27751, August 31, 1970
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Hon. Gaudencio Cloribel, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI, and Chua Tee, also known as Dy Kang Ling, Respondents.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus against respondent Judge Gaudencio Cloribel, alleging undue delay in the denaturalization case against respondent Chua Tee. The Republic’s action for cancellation of Chua Tee’s certificate of naturalization was repeatedly postponed upon Chua Tee’s motions, despite no opposition being filed. The petition also highlighted the respondent Judge’s apparent bias, notably in allowing Chua Tee to take the oath of citizenship without the Solicitor General’s presence to object. Chua Tee’s original naturalization application was allegedly defective, lacking required details and documents. Nevertheless, the lower court granted his petition on July 25, 1960. On July 31, 1962, Chua Tee filed a petition to take his oath. The Solicitor General received notice on the same date, but it only requested a hearing date for evidence reception. On August 4, 1962, respondent Judge hastily received Chua Tee’s evidence ex parte, without the Solicitor General, and allowed him to take the oath. The Republic’s urgent motion for reconsideration was denied on August 11, 1962, and Chua Tee took his oath that day. The certificate of naturalization was issued on September 13, 1962. Subsequently, on May 14, 1966, the Republic filed a motion for cancellation of the certificate. Despite no opposition, respondent Judge granted eleven successive postponement motions by Chua Tee, leading the Republic to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in the proceedings related to Chua Tee’s oath-taking and the subsequent denaturalization case, particularly by allowing ex parte evidence and oath-taking without the Solicitor General’s presence and by causing undue delay through multiple postponements.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari. The order allowing Chua Tee’s oath-taking was void because it violated Republic Act No. 530, which mandates a proper hearing with the attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative before a decision granting naturalization becomes executory. The Solicitor General’s absence on August 4, 1962, was justified, and the respondent Judge’s refusal to reconsider the order to allow cross-examination infected all subsequent proceedings with a fatal infirmity. Consequently, the certificate of naturalization (No. 3226) was declared canceled, void, and of no effect. The Court made permanent the preliminary mandatory injunction requiring Chua Tee to surrender his certificate and continued to enjoin him from representing himself as a Filipino citizen. The case was remanded for a new hearing under Republic Act No. 530, with the indispensable presence of the Solicitor General or his representative.