GR 141834; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141834; July 30, 2007
COMMISSIONER RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ and ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ALAN ROULLO YAP of the Bureau of Immigration, Petitioners, vs. SAMUEL A. JARDIN, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Samuel A. Jardin, Chief of the Bureau of Immigration’s (BI) Law and Intelligence Division, was seen at the NAIA arrival area with a Japanese national, Mizutani Ryoichiro, who was later identified as an undesirable alien subject to an exclusion order. BI intelligence agents filed a spot report, leading to an investigation. Respondent explained he was assisting relatives in welcoming his niece’s fiancé, believing the blacklisted individual was a different person. Acting Immigration Commissioner Ma. Luisa Ylagan-Cortez ordered respondent’s preventive suspension for 90 days, and the case was referred to Associate Commissioner Alan Yap for formal investigation.
Respondent sought review from the Secretary of Justice and, despite the lapse of his suspension, filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA nullified the suspension order and directed reinstatement. Petitioners Rodriguez and Yap appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner Rodriguez was replaced by Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo, and petitioner Yap was appointed to another office. The Office of the Solicitor General manifested that Commissioner Domingo did not adopt her predecessor’s position in this case.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for review should be dismissed due to the failure to effect a valid substitution of a party who ceased to hold office.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, dismissing the case on a technical ground. The Court applied Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which governs the continuation of an action when a public officer, sued in an official capacity, ceases to hold office during the pendency of the case. For a valid substitution, the successor must adopt or continue the action of the predecessor, and the substitution must be made within thirty days after the successor assumes office or within a period granted by the court.
Here, petitioner Rodriguez’s successor, Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo, categorically expressed through the OSG that she was not adopting the position of her predecessor in pursuing this appeal. Consequently, the mandatory requisites for substitution were not satisfied. The failure to effect a proper substitution pursuant to the rules is a ground for the dismissal of an action. The Court, bound by this procedural rule, found no substantial need to continue the appeal as the new commissioner disavowed the petition. Thus, the petition was denied.