G.R. No. L-14323. April 29, 1960.
ANTERO SORIANO, JR., petitioner-appellant, vs. EMILIO L. GALANG, Commissioner of Immigration, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Antero Soriano, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Manila to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Immigration confiscating a cash bond he posted for alien temporary visitor Ngo Tiong Kian. The petitioner alleged he filed a P2,000 cash bond for Ngo Tiong Kian’s release in September 1950 and another bond for the same amount on July 30, 1956. On November 26, 1956, the respondent Commissioner declared the bond forfeited on the ground that the alien had engaged in gainful employment without the required written permission, violating the conditions of his temporary stay. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the charge was not established in a proper proceeding, no bond condition was violated to warrant forfeiture, and no hearing was conducted on the forfeiture. The respondent denied the motion. The respondent’s answer admitted the petitioner filed a P2,000 bond on September 28, 1950, for the alien’s temporary admission, which contained a condition (paragraph g) prohibiting the alien from being employed or engaging in any business without the Commissioner’s prior written consent. The respondent stated the bond confiscated was this 1950 bond, not the 1956 bond, and that investigation found the alien was employed without permission. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding the Commissioner’s power to allow bonds and order confiscation rests within his sound discretion and cannot be attacked via certiorari. The petitioner appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent Commissioner had the power to confiscate the cash bond.
2. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to contest the bond’s confiscation.
3. Whether the court should review and nullify the confiscation order.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition.
1. On the power to confiscate: The Court found the bond confiscated was the one executed on September 28, 1950, for temporary admission, not the July 30, 1956, bond for temporary release pending deportation proceedings. The 1950 bond expressly conditioned that the alien shall not be employed or engage in any business without the Commissioner’s written consent. It was not denied that the alien was employed as a store attendant, constituting a breach of this condition. The confiscation was pursuant to Section 40 of the Immigration Act of 1940 ( Commonwealth Act No. 613 ), which authorizes forfeiture upon breach of bond conditions. The claim that the 1956 bond superseded the 1950 bond was without merit, as the two bonds served different purposes (temporary admission vs. temporary release pending deportation).
2. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held certiorari does not lie, as it is a remedy against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions. The proceeding instituted by the petitioner was not the proper remedy to question the validity of the bond confiscation.
3. On review of the confiscation order: The Court found no error in the lower court’s refusal to review and nullify the order. Furthermore, the petition was prematurely brought because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Commissioner of Immigration is under the control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice, and the petitioner should have appealed to the Secretary for a reversal or review of the confiscation before resorting to court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant.