G.R. No. L-25442 June 29, 1968
HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, as Commissioner of Immigration, petitioner, vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the CFI of Manila, TSOI SAU CHUN, CHUA LE GUAT and her minor children ANG KIE LIM AND FEI CHING and ANG CHAK CHI, LAM PEK YUK, KWOK KAM LIEN and her minor children YU KIAN TIOK and YU LILY; SY SIOK HIAN and her minor children ONG LAI YUEN, ONG ANG KIAM and WONG LAI SHU; and TSAI BUN and her minor child NG KAM YUK, respondents.

FACTS

This case is an offshoot of G.R. No. L-22354. The private respondents are Chinese citizens who arrived in the Philippines as temporary visitors and secured several extensions of their stay. In February 1962, five of them requested the President to be allowed to invest money in the Philippines, which request was indorsed by the Acting Commissioner of Immigration. While their requests were pending, they sought further extensions as temporary visitors, but these were denied by the President. On August 29, 1962, the Commissioner of Immigration issued Circular No. 101 terminating the authorized stay of all bonded alien temporary visitors who arrived in 1961 and prior years and directing them to leave. The aliens filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction in the CFI of Manila against the enforcement of the circular. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction and later rendered judgment ordering the Commissioner to register the aliens as special non-immigrants under Section 47(a)2 of the Immigration Act of 1940, authorize them to continue operating their business until December 31, 1967, and then liquidate and depart. On appeal in G.R. No. L-22354, the Supreme Court reversed the CFI decision, declaring the appellees without right to stay in the Philippines and ordering their departure, the return of extension fees, and the dissolution of the injunction. The aliens failed to leave upon finality of the decision. Instead, on October 11, 1965, they wrote the Commissioner requesting to be allowed to stay until the termination of President Macapagal’s Socio-Economic Program. This request was denied. The aliens then filed a new petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction in the CFI of Manila (Civil Case No. 63135), praying that the Commissioner be ordered to accept their monthly extension fee payments and schedule their departure not earlier than the period contemplated in the President’s socio-economic program. On October 29, 1965, respondent Judge Cloribel gave due course to the petition and issued an order directing the Commissioner to desist from executing the acts complained of. The Commissioner filed the present petition to annul that order. On December 23, 1965, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining respondent Judge from enforcing the October 29, 1965 order and from taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 63135. On January 3, 1966, counsel for the private respondents filed a manifestation praying for dismissal of the case, attaching a copy of a “Motion to Withdraw Petition” they had filed in the lower court in Civil Case No. 63135. The motion stated that a Supreme Court resolution dated December 14, 1965, in G.R. No. L-22354 had remanded that case to the lower court, and thus the cause of action in Civil Case No. 63135 was left without support, necessitating withdrawal of the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the petition before the Supreme Court has become moot and academic due to the withdrawal of the underlying civil case in the lower court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. Upon consideration of the withdrawal of Civil Case No. 63135 in the court below, the case became moot. The respondent Judge, having been served with the Supreme Court’s writ of preliminary injunction a day before the respondents’ withdrawal motion, could not issue an order of dismissal. However, the discontinuance of the civil case would not yield any disadvantage or prejudice upon the Government, and the Judge should grant the motion to withdraw and dissolve the restraining order issued on October 29, 1965. The petition was therefore dismissed, without costs. The Court pronounced, however, that the decision in G.R. No. L-22354 be immediately and fully implemented, with costs against the private respondents.