G.R. No. L-11148; March 1, 1916
Case Title: LIM BUN SU, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.

FACTS:
1. On June 23, 1913, Lim Bun Su arrived at the port of Manila and sought entry into the Philippine Islands as the legitimate minor son of a resident Chinese merchant.
2. A Board of Special Inquiry denied his entry, finding he was not the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant. The Insular Collector of Customs affirmed this decision on August 4, 1913, and ordered his deportation.
3. On August 6, 1913, Lim Bun Su filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. The CFI (Judge Crossfield) denied the petition, finding no abuse of discretion by the customs authorities. The Supreme Court affirmed this denial in a decision promulgated on March 4, 1915, and ordered his deportation.
4. Notwithstanding the final Supreme Court decision, Lim Bun Su filed a second petition for habeas corpus in the CFI of Manila on June 23, 1915, raising substantially the same grounds.
5. The CFI (Judge Ostrand) again denied the petition on July 10, 1915, ruling there was no evidence of abuse of discretion or substantial errors of law by the administrative officials. Lim Bun Su appealed this second denial to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of First Instance (and subsequently the Supreme Court) correctly denied Lim Bun Su’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court denying the writ and ordering the petitioner’s deportation.

The Court held that all questions presented by the appellant had already been discussed and decided in previous decisions, which were against his contention. The Court found no valuable purpose in restating the arguments. The core principle applied was that the courts will not interfere with the decisions of immigration authorities (the Board of Special Inquiry and the Insular Collector of Customs) in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion or authority. No such abuse was found in this case. The second petition for habeas corpus, filed after a final judgment on the same matter, was properly denied.

Concurring Opinion (Moreland, J.):
Justice Moreland concurred, stating the judgment should be affirmed insofar as it denies the application for the writ. He clarified that neither the CFI nor the Supreme Court sought to make a new order of deportation but were merely reviewing the legality of the detention based on the existing administrative order.