GR L 21415; (February, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21415 February 28, 1966
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC SURETY and INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint to recover P3,000.00 from Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. based on the forfeiture of an immigration bond. The bond was posted by the defendant on April 1, 1949, in favor of the Bureau of Immigration for the temporary stay of immigrant Yu Ngo. Commissioner of Immigration Emilio Galang declared the bond forfeited on February 5, 1960, due to violations of its conditions by the immigrant. The defendant, in its answer, claimed its failure to comply was due to supervening circumstances. Subsequently, on May 3, 1962, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Acting Commissioner of Immigration Agapito R. Conchu had lifted the forfeiture and cancelled the bond. Both the Municipal Court of Manila and the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint based on this cancellation. The plaintiff appealed, disputing the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Acting Commissioner of Immigration had the authority to lift the forfeiture and cancel the bond, thereby rendering the government’s action to recover the bond amount moot.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. It held that the Commissioner of Immigration, who is charged with administering immigration laws and has the authority to declare immigration bonds forfeited, also possesses the corollary power to lift such an order of forfeiture and cancel the bond. The Court found no law or regulation requiring the approval of the Secretary of Justice for either the forfeiture or the lifting of forfeiture of an immigration bond. Since the original forfeiture by Commissioner Galang was done without the Secretary of Justice’s approval, the subsequent lifting and cancellation by Acting Commissioner Conchu were similarly valid without such approval. The inaction of the Secretary of Justice on the matter referred to him was interpreted as neither approval nor disapproval, and did not invalidate the Acting Commissioner’s order. Therefore, the cancellation of the bond extinguished the defendant’s liability.