G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968
MARTINIANO P. VIVO, in his capacity as (Acting) COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, petitioner, vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, LIN SIONG, TIU SIOK, LIM I CHI and LIM U TE, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Tiu Siok Tin and her two minor children arrived in the Philippines on December 13, 1960 as non-immigrant temporary visitors with an initial three-month authorized stay. Their stay was extended multiple times. On November 27, 1961, they requested a change of status to special non-immigrants and an extension of stay until the oath-taking of their husband/father, Lim Siong, whose petition for naturalization had been granted. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs approved the change of status, and the Secretary of Justice approved an extension of stay until October 14, 1963. The Commissioner of Immigration later granted a further extension only until September 12, 1962. Subsequently, the new Commissioner, through Circular No. V-101, abrogated all extensions of stay for 1961 arrivals and ordered respondents to leave by September 12, 1962. Instead of departing, respondents filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by Judge Cloribel, to prevent their arrest and deportation. The court issued a preliminary injunction. The Commissioner moved to dissolve the injunction, which was denied. The Commissioner then moved to dismiss the case or dissolve the injunction, citing the precedent in Vivo vs. Arca, which held that a court’s refusal to dissolve an injunction after the expiration of an alien’s authorized stay constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Judge Cloribel denied this motion. The Commissioner then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

1. Did the lower court gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss or to dissolve the injunction anchored on the precedent-setting decision of Vivo v. Arca?
2. Was petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration a fatal defect?
3. Would certiorari and prohibition be the proper remedy to question a denial of a motion to dismiss?

RULING

The petition is granted. The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the assailed orders of the lower court and permanently restrained respondent Judge from further taking cognizance of the case, except to dismiss it for having become moot.
1. Yes, the lower court gravely abused its discretion. Respondents’ authorized stay indubitably expired after October 14, 1963, rendering the prohibition case moot and academic. By refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction, Judge Cloribel ignored the ruling in Vivo v. Arca, sanctioned the continuing violation of immigration laws, and allowed respondents to unduly prolong their illegal stay, constituting grave abuse of discretion. The naturalization of the husband/father did not automatically make the wife and minor children Filipinos or improve their position regarding their expired authorized stay.
2. No, the failure to file a motion for reconsideration was not a fatal defect. A motion for reconsideration was unnecessary as it would involve more delay, further prejudicing government interest.
3. Yes, certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies. An appeal is not an adequate remedy because, pending appeal, the aliens would be able to unduly prolong their illegal stay in violation of immigration laws and policies.