G.R. No. L-23239 November 23, 1966
HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration, petitioner, vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Sy King Fong and her minor children (respondent visitors) were admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors on January 17, 1961, for a three-month stay, with their husband/father, respondent Co Chin, posting a P28,000 bond. Their stay was extended multiple times. After Co Chin’s petition for naturalization was granted on June 24, 1961, the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice, invoking a Cabinet Resolution, approved a change in the visitors’ status to “special non-immigrants” and extended their stay up to June 24, 1963, subject to conditions including securing re-entry permits. However, the Commissioner of Immigration only extended their stay up to October 17, 1962. Following a change in administration, the new Secretaries maintained that the power to extend stay rests with the Commissioner, who then issued Immigration Circular No. V-101 abrogating prior extensions and ordered the visitors to leave by September 18, 1962. Instead of complying, Co Chin filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction before respondent Judge Cloribel, who issued the injunction on September 18, 1962, restraining the Commissioner from arresting or deporting the visitors. The Commissioner moved to dissolve the injunction after the extended stay period expired, but Judge Cloribel denied the motion on March 30, 1964.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction and refusing to dissolve it after the authorized period of the respondents’ stay had expired.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court dissolved the preliminary injunction and set aside the respondent Judge’s order refusing to dissolve it. The Court held that the extensions of stay granted by the Secretaries specified a definite terminal date of June 24, 1963, which had long expired. Following the precedent in Vivo v. Arca, an extension of an alien’s stay is a matter of grace, not right, and must be strictly interpreted. Since the visitors’ authorized stay had terminated, the refusal to dissolve the injunction was against the law, constituting an abuse of discretion and excess of jurisdiction. The Court further noted that Judge Cloribel disregarded current jurisprudence and acted to the detriment of the Government’s interests. The Court permanently restrained Judge Cloribel from further taking cognizance of the case, which had become moot and academic, and upheld the Commissioner’s authority to confiscate the bond and proceed in accordance with the law.