Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the

Jimmy Go vs. BI (G.R. No. 191810,2015) Court En Banc.

G.R. No. 191810 June 22, 2015

Same; Same; Judgments; Immutability of Final Judgments; The principle of
immutability leaves the judgment undisturbed as nothing further can be done
JIMMY T. GO a.k.a. JAIME T. GAISANO, Petitioner,
vs. except to execute it.—Subject to certain recognized exceptions such as (1) the
BUREEAU OF IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION and its correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause
COMMISIONERS and LUIS T. RAMOS, Respondents, no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances
transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and
Doctrines: inequitable, which are not present in this case, the principle of immutability
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Motion for Reconsideration; The Supreme Court leaves the judgment undisturbed as nothing further can be done except to
(SC) resolutely holds that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited execute it.
pleading, and only for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and after an express
leave has been first obtained may such motion be entertained.—As a general
rule, a second motion Same; Same; Appeals; In this jurisdiction, courts will not interfere in matters
which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted
for reconsideration cannot be entertained. Section 2 of Rule 52 of the Rules of with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge
Court is unequivocal. The Court resolutely holds that a second motion for and training of such agencies.—The Bureau of Immigration is the agency that can
reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, and only for extraordinarily persuasive best determine whether petitioner Go violated certain provisions of C.A. No. 613,
reasons and after an express leave has been first obtained may such motion be as amended. In this jurisdiction, courts will not interfere in matters which are
entertained. The restrictive policy against a second motion for reconsideration is addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the
emphasized in A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, as amended (Internal Rules of the Supreme regulation of activities coming under the
Court). Section 3, Rule 15 of which states: SEC. 3. Second motion for
reconsideration.—The Court shall not entertain a second motion for special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. By reason of the
reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher special knowledge and expertise of administrative departments over matters
interest of justice by the Court En Banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its falling within their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment
actual membership. There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of justice” thereon and their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if
when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently not finality, by the courts.
unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or
damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be
entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by Same; Same; Same; Petition for Review on Certiorari; The well-settled rule is that
operation of law or by the Court’s declaration. In the Division, a vote of three questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review under Rule 45, subject
only to certain exceptions.—A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules he may exhaust the available administrative remedies within the executive
generally bars any question pertaining to the factual issues. The well-settled rule machinery, namely, an appeal to the Secretary of Justice and then to the OP, and
is that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review under Rule 45, thereafter, appeal the OP’s decisions via Rule 43; or (c) he may directly resort to
subject only to certain exceptions, among them, the lack of sufficient support in certiorari before the CA strictly on jurisdictional grounds, provided that he
evidence of the trial court’s judgment or the appellate court’s misapprehension explains why any of the aforementioned remedies cannot be taken as “adequate
of the adduced facts. None of the exceptions was convincingly shown to be and speedy.”
present in this case.

Velasco, Jr., J., Dissenting Opinion:

Same; Same; Forum Shopping; Words and Phrases; Forum shopping is defined as:
[w]hen a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same Citizenship; View that in line with the doctrine permitting judicial determination
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising in cases where there is substantial evidence to support a claim of citizenship, the
substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by Supreme Court (SC) can very well suspend the rules and finally pass upon and
some other court.—In addition, this Court cannot let it pass to declare that adjudge the citizenship of Go, Sr. and Go in the higher interest of substantial
petitioner Go is guilty of forum shopping. Forum shopping is defined as: [w]hen a justice.—As it were, the instant case was initiated fifteen (15) years ago and it
party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, may take several years more to finally determine petitioner’s citizenship. Given
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same this hard fact and in line with the doctrine permitting judicial determination in
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising cases where there is substantial evidence to support a claim of citizenship, the
substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by Court can very well suspend the rules and finally pass upon and adjudge the
some other court. Forum shopping consists of the following elements: (a) identity citizenship of Go, Sr. and Go in the higher interest of substantial justice. In this
of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; regard, I note that petitioner Go, in the instant recourse, prays for the final
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on adjudication of his citizenship which will ultimately settle whether he is indeed
the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that subject to deportation.
any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

Same; Same; Three (3) Options of the Aggrieved Party from an Order of the Same; View that cases involving issues on citizenship are sui generis, meaning:
Bureau of Immigration (BI) Board of Commissioners Denying His Motion for they are in a class of their own.—Cases involving issues on citizenship are sui
Reconsideration.—We have held in Tze Sun Wong v. Kenny Wong, 743 SCRA 567 generis, meaning: they are in a class of their own. Thus, in cases where the
(2014), that from the denial of the motion for reconsideration by the BI Board of citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative
Commissioners, the aggrieved party has three (3) options: (a) he may file an case and whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides
appeal directly to the CA via Rule 43 provided that he shows that any of the therein, citizenship is not considered as res judicata and can be
exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine attend; (b) absent any of the exceptions,
retried again and again. Res judicata may only be applied in cases of citizenship deportee is uprooted from the country he was adjudged as an alien and shipped
when the following concur: 1. a person’s citizenship must be raised as a material to a country where he owes no allegiance to nor have a family in. Hence, We
issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2. the Solicitor General or his should always be extremely vigilant in cases of deportation lest a deportee be an
authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and 3. the actual citizen deprived of his Constitutional rights. In fact, Chief Justice
finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court. Since the above mentioned
Warren, in his dissent in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), said, “Citizenship is
requisites for res judicata did not concur in the previous case being a deportation
man’s basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. Remove this
case, the Court should, therefore, not be precluded from reviewing the findings
priceless possession and there remains a stateless person, disgraced and
of the BI through judicial review when present are substantial grounds and
degraded in the eyes of his countrymen.” Accordingly, it would be best for Us to
evidence which show the conclusiveness of the citizenship of a deportee. The
tread carefully on this matter so that the petitioner, an alleged alien, is accorded
right to immediate review of the case of a deportee should be recognized to
an opportunity to prove his citizenship prior his expulsion from our country.
afford the deportee the chance to prove his or her citizenship prior to a possible
Therefore, when there is substantial evidence which show that the deportee is a
mistaken deportation to another country.
citizen, the citizenship of said deportee should be determined first prior to an
actual deportation.

Same; View that citizenship is a personal and more or less permanent

membership in a political community.—Citizenship is a “personal and more or
Same; Constitutional Law; View that Article IV, Sec. 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution
less permanent membership in a political community. It denotes possession
provides that the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an
within that particular political community of full civil and political rights subject to
alien father follows the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of
special disqualifications such as minority.” An “alien,” on the other hand, is “one
majority, the child elects Philippine citizenship.—Article IV, Sec. 1(3) of the 1935
owing allegiance to another country; a foreign-born resident who has not been
Constitution provides that the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino
naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country.” While
mother and an alien father follows the citizenship of the father, unless, upon
“deportation” is “the removal from a country of an alien whose presence in the
reaching the age of majority, the child elects Philippine citizenship. On the other
country is unlawful or is held to be prejudicial to the public welfare.”
hand, Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 625 provides for the procedure on the actual election of
citizenship by the child which states that legitimate children born of Filipino
mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention “in a
Same; Deportation; View that in theory, deportation proceedings should only
statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer
pertain to an alien; it should never apply to a citizen of the country from which a
authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry.
person is being deported.—In theory, deportation proceedings should only
The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
pertain to an alien; it should never apply to a citizen of the country from which a
allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines.”
person is being deported. So after a person is adjudged as an alien, the BI can
deport the alien to his or her country of origin. However, there might be some
instances where a citizen is erroneously deported to another country. What then
Same; View that an Election of Philippine Citizenship must be expressed in a
will happen if one is deported and later on found out to be a citizen? The
statement before any officer authorized to administer oaths and filed with the
nearest civil registry and accompanied by an Oath of Allegiance to the Philippine prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these decisions, the proper
Constitution.—I find Go, Sr. to have substantially complied with the procedure period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the
provided for by Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 625. Though the provision provided the words pronouncements of the Department of State of the United States Government to
“must be” implying a mandatory order to perform a duty, the aforementioned the effect that the election should be made within a “reasonable time” after
provision did not specifically state that the Election of Citizenship must come attaining the age of majority. The phrase “reasonable time” has been construed
before the filing of an Oath of Allegiance. Again, to reiterate, the pertinent to mean that the election should be made within three (3) years upon reaching
portion of Section 1 states: “an Election of Philippine Citizenship must be the age of majority. However, in Dy Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, 5 SCRA 108
expressed in a statement before any officer authorized to administer oaths and (1962), We ruled that the three (3)-year period is not an inflexible rule. We
filed with the nearest civil staged that “it is true that this clause has been construed to mean a reasonable
period after reaching the age of majority, and that the Secretary of Justice has
registry and accompanied by an Oath of Allegiance to the Philippine
ruled that three (3) years is the reasonable time to elect Philippine citizenship
Constitution.” In Our mind, the mandatory command of the word “must” given
under the constitutional provision adverted to above, which period may be
by Section 1 pertains to the filing of an Election of Citizenship and Oath of
extended under certain circumstances,
Allegiance in the nearest civil registry and not the sequence of filing of the
Election of Citizenship and Oath of Allegiance of a person. This is so because the as when the person concerned has always considered himself a Filipino.” There is
words “must be” is written immediately before the phrase “expressed in a a caveat — the extendable period to elect Philippine citizenship is not indefinite.
statement before any officer authorized to administer oaths.” Thus, the It should not be extended beyond a period that cannot, by any stretch of
mandatory element relates to how an Election of Citizenship should be written. imagination, be considered as “reasonable.” In Dy Cuenco, We held that election
The word “and” pertains to where the Election of Citizenship and the Oath of made seven (7) years after a person has reached the age of majority is not
Citizenship should be filed, which is at the “nearest civil registry.” The Oath of considered as a “reasonable time” to elect citizenship. In Re: Application for
Citizenship shall accompany the Election of Citizenship. In this case, Go, Sr. filed Admission to the Philippine Bar v. Vicente D. Ching, We held that an election
the Oath of Citizenship before the Election of Citizenship; hence, he substantially made fourteen (14) years after a person has reached the age of majority cannot
complied with the requirements of the Act. be allowed because it was clearly made beyond the allowable period.

Same; View that the phrase “reasonable time” has been construed to mean that Same; View Carlos was born to, and raised in the Philippines by, his Filipino
the election should be made within three (3) years upon reaching the age of mother. He in fact always considered himself a Filipino, and did not even leave
majority.—Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 625 did not, however, prescribe a time period within the Philippines. This belief that he was a Filipino from the very beginning more
which the election of the Philippine citizenship should be made. The 1935 than justifies the tardiness in his election of Philippine citizenship.—Carlos, on the
Constitution only provides that the election should be made “upon reaching the other hand, was born to, and raised in the Philippines by, his Filipino mother. He
age of majority.” The age of majority during that period of time commenced in fact always considered himself a Filipino, and did not even leave the
upon reaching twenty-one (21) years of age. In the opinions of the Secretary of Philippines. This belief that he was a Filipino from the very beginning more than
Justice on cases involving the validity of election of Philippine citizenship, this justifies the tardiness in his election of Philippine citizenship. Further, Carlos was
dilemma was resolved by basing the time period on the decisions of this Court a registered voter and actually voted in presidential and local elections. He
contributed to the economy of the Philippines by setting up businesses, ensuring petitioner’s parents, i.e., Rosario Tan and Carlos Go, as “Filipino,” conclusively
employment to other Filipinos, and religiously paying his taxes. Likewise, there is establishes petitioner Go’s citizenship. Indeed, the Certificate of Live Birth issued
no evidence of an Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) issued to him, as, indeed, by the NSO constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts that are stated therein
it would be impossible for Carlos to obtain an ACR since he in fact is not an as regards the nationality of petitioner Go and his father, Go, Sr. The
immigrant, being born here in the Philippines. Even the public respondents fail to respondents, despite due notice on September 17, 2014 to comment on the
rebut the allegation that there are no records of Carlos’ “entry” to the Certificate of Live Birth submitted by the petitioner, failed to do so. Thus, We
Philippines. Cumulatively, Carlos had done more than what was required of him should dispense with the respondents’ Comment and rule that petitioner Go is,
to elect his Filipino citizenship. Any more requirements imposed upon him, which indeed, Filipino.
is not required by law, shall be judicial legislation which this Court is prohibited
from doing.
Same; View that the denial of this petition ought not to bar petitioner from
pursuing a legal action before a court of law to prove his citizenship pursuant to
Same; Natural-born Filipino Citizen; View that Go, Sr. is, thus, considered a citizen the Court’s decision in Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, 598 SCRA 266 (2009).—The denial of
by election under the Section 1(4), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution and Section this petition ought not to bar petitioner from pursuing a legal action before a
1 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625. After such election, he is, for all intents court of law to prove his citizenship pursuant to the Court’s decision in Go, Sr. vs.
and purposes, considered a natural-born Filipino citizen.—Go, Sr. is, thus, Ramos, 598 SCRA 266 (2009). Petitioner should be allowed to prove his
considered a citizen by election under the Section 1(4), Article IV of the 1935 citizenship in another proceeding considering that he is the grandson of the
Constitu- tion and Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625. After such election, Chinese immigrant, Go Yin An. His father was born in the Philippines, as was
he is, for all intents and purposes, considered a natural-born Filipino citizen. For petitioner. Yet, no deportation proceeding was ever commenced against the
the respondents to collaterally attack Go, Sr.’s citizenship would do grave father, who is even closer to the only indisputable Chinese immigrant in this saga.
injustice against him since he was not afforded the opportunity to defend his It seems that petitioner is sought to be punished for whatever sins his forebears
right to be called a Filipino citizen. Even naturalized Filipino citizens are protected committed, which should not be the case. In Lam Shee v. Bengzon, 93 Phil. 1065
against such challenges, what more a person considered as natural-born citizen? (1953), the Court refused to deport the child of an immigrant despite the fact
that his mother clearly was in the wrong.

Same; View that after due determination, I find petitioner Go to be a Filipino

citizen being a minor at the time his father elected his Filipino citizenship, and he, DECISION
by operation-of-law, automatically became a Filipino.—After due determination, I
find petitioner Go to be a Filipino citizen being a minor at the time his father PERALTA, J.:
elected his Filipino citizenship, and he, by operation-of-law, automatically
became a Filipino. This, coupled with the new evidence that petitioner submitted This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
a Certificate of Live Birth of “Baby Jimmy Go” issued by the National Statistics (Rules) seeking to nullify the October 28, 2009 Decision1 and March 22, 2010
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88840, which affirmed
Office (NSO), Office of the Civil Registrar General which indicate that both
as final and executor the April 17, 2002 Decision3 of the Bureau of Immigration In October 2000, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) forwarded to the
(BI) in BSI-D.C. No. ADD-01-117. BI a copy of its Investigation Report and probe on the investigation conducted
against petitioner Go and GO, Sr. pursuant to the letter complaint of the
In June 1999, the Concerned Employee’s of Noah’s Arc Group of Companies Concerned Employees of Noah’s Arc Group of Companies. The finding of the
filed a letter0complaint against petitioner Jimmy T. Go a.k.a. Jaime T. Gaisano Special Investigator, which were affirmed by the Chief of the SLPS-NBI, stated
(Go) and his father, Carlos Go, Sr. a.k.a. Go Kian Lu (Go, Sr.) It was claimed that the election of Philippine citizenship of Go, Sr. was in accordance with the
that Go, Sr. was an undocumented alien who later adopted the Filipino name provisions of the 1935 Constitution and that the erasure on the original birth
‘Carlos Go, Sr." Allegedly, Go. Sr. obtained for himself some basic education certificate of petitioner Go could not be attributed to him or Go, Sr. because
and married a Chinese woman name Rosario Tan. Their union produced ten said document was on file with the local civil registrar of Iloilo City.
(10) children, one of whom is petitioner Go. On the premise that Go, Sr. was
an undocumented alien, petitioner Go is also an alien, being a child of a Finding the evidence and report of the NBA as conclusive of the citizenship of
Chinese citizen. petitioner Go and Go, Sr., BI Associate Commissioner Linda L. Malenab-
Hornilla subsequently rendered a Resolution dated February 14, 2001 that
A year after, in April 2000, a complaint-affidavit4 for deportation of petitioner Go dismissed the complaint for deportation filed against petitioner Go.5
was initiated, this time by Luis T. Ramos (Ramos), before the Bureau of
Immigration. Ramos alleged that while petitioner Go represents himself as a However, on March 8, 2001,6 the BI Board of Commissioners (Board) reversed
Filipino citizen, his personal circumstances and relevant records indicate that the case dismissal, holding that the election of Philippine citizenship of Go, Sr.
he is a Chinese citizen born in the Philippines to Chinese parents, which is in was made out of time. The Board then directed the preparation and filing of
violation of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 613, otherwise known as the the appropriate deportation charges against petitioner Go.
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. To prove his contention,
Ramos presented the birth certificates of petitioner Go as well as that of his One July 3, 2001, the corresponding Charge Sheet7 was filed against
sister Juliet GO (Juliet) and older brother Carlos Go, Jr. (Carlos, Jr.). The birth petitioner Go for violation of Section 37(a)(9), in relation to Section 45(e) of
certificate indicates petitioner Go as "FChinese." The pertinent page from the C.A. No. 613, as amended, committed as follows:
Registry of Births also states that the citizenship of Baby Jimmy Go is
"Chinese." Further, the birth certificates of his siblings show that they were 1. That Respondent was born on October 25, 1952 in Iloilo City, as
born of Chinese parents. evidenced by a copy of his birth certificate wherein his citizenship was
recorded a "Chinese";
Petitioner Go refuted the allegations in his counter-affidavit. He alleged that his
father, Go, Sr., who was the son of a Chinese father and Filipina mother, 2. That Respondent through some stealth machinations was able to
elected Philippine citizenship, as evidenced by his having taken the Oath of subsequently cover up his true and actual citizenship as Chinese and
Allegiance on July 11, 1950 and having executed an Affidavit of Election of illegally acquired a Philippine Passport under the name JAIME T.
Philippine Citizenship on July 12, 1950. He added that Go, Sr. was a GAISANO, with the use of falsified documents and untruthful
registered voter and actually voted in the 1952 and 1955 elections. As regards declarations, in violation of the above-cited provisions of the
the entry in his siblings’ certificates of birth, petitioner Go averred that Juliet Immigration Act[;] [and]
and Carlos, Jr., were born on June 3, 1946 and April 2, 1949, respectively, or
prior to their father’s election of Philippine citizenship. Finally, petitioner Go
3. That [R]espondent being an alien, has formally and officially
asserted that his birth certificate states that his father’s citizenship is "Filipino."
represents and introduces himself as a citizen of the Philippines, for
fraudulent purposes and in order to evade any requirements of the
immigration laws, also in violation of said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8 Civil Code as they are considered public documents. Further, it was opined
that petitioner Go’s claim of being Filipino totally lacks merit since his father’s
In November 2001, petitioner Go and Go, Sr. filed a petition for certiorari and election of Philippine citizenship was void for having been filed five (5) years
prohibition with application for injunctive reliefs before the Regional Trial Court after his attainment of the age of majority or when he was twenty-six (26)
(RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 167, docketed as SCA No. 2218, seeking to annul years old. The Board also observed that the certified true copy of the Oath of
and set aside the March 8, 2001.9 Essentially, they challenged the jurisdiction Allegiance of Go, Sr. appears to have been subscribed and sworn to before
of the Board to continue with the deportation proceedings. the Deputy Clerk of Court of Iloilo City on July 11,1950 while his Affidavit of
Election was subscribed and sworn to before the same public officer a day
In the interim, the Board issued a Decision dated April 17, 2002 in BSI-D.C. after. The Board considered this a irregular since Go, Sr. filed his Oath of
No. ADD-01-117, ordering the apprehension and deportation of petitioner Go. Allegiance prior to his actual election of the Philippine citizenship contrary to
The dispositive portion of which reads: Section 1 of C.A. 625, which provides:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Board of Commissioners hereby Election of Philippine Citizenship must be expressed in a statement before any
Orders the apprehension of respondent JIMMY T. GO @ JAIME T. GAISANO officer authorized to administer oaths and filed with the nearest civil registry
and that he be then deported to CHINA of which he is a citizen, without and accompanied by an Oath of Allegiance to the Philippine Constitution.
prejudice, however, to the continuation of any and all criminal and other
proceedings that are pending court or before the prosecution arm of the In view of the adverse judgment, petitioner Go and Go, Sr. filed before the
Philippine Government, if any. And that upon expulsion, he is thereby ordered Pasig RTC a supplemental petition to declare the nullity of the Board’s April
barred from entry into the Philippines. 17, 2002 Decision.12

SO ORDERED.10 The Pasig RTC issued a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction pending
litigation on the main issue, enjoining the BI from enforcing the April 17, 2002
The Board gave weight to the documents submitted against petitioner Go, to Decision.13 Later, however, it dissolved the writ in a Decision dated January 6,
wit: 2004, which dismissed the petition for lack of merit.14 A motion for
reconsideration was filed, but it was denied in an Order issued on May 3,
2004.15
1. The Certificate of Birth of petitioner Go, issued on November 23,
1999 by the local civil registrar of Iloilo City, which showed that Baby
Jimmy Go is "FChinese"; Petitioner Go and Go, Sr. then questioned before the CA the RTC’s January 6,
2004 Decision and May 3, 2004 Order by way of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85143.16 The
2. The Certificate of Live Birth of Juliet Go, which certified that her
appellate court, however, dismissed the petition and denied the motion for
citizenship was Chinese. The same certificate also stated that Go, Sr.
reconsideration on October 25, 2004 and February 16, 2005, respectively. 17
was a "Chinese" and the mother "Rosario Tan" was also "Chinese";
and
Meantime, on November 16, 2004, the Board issued a warrant of deportation,
which led to the apprehension and detention of petitioner Go pending his
3. The Certificate of Live Birth of Carlos Go, Jr., whose citizenship was
deportation.18
also certified as "Chinese."

The Board held that all documents submitted were prima-facie evidence of the
facts regarding the nationality of petitioner Go pursuant to Article 41011 of the
Thereafter, petitioner Go and Go, Sr. filed before this Court a petition for As a general rule, a second motion for reconsideration cannot be entertained.
review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570, assailing the Section 2 or Rule 52 of the Rules of Court is unequivocal.24 The Court
CA decision and resolution CA-G.R. SP No. 85143. resolutely holds that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited
pleading, and only for extraordinarily persuasive reasons and after an express
Petitioner Go also appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which, on leave has been first obtained may such motion be entertained.25 The restrictive
September 29, 2004, concurred with the findings of the Board.19 The OP policy against a second motion for reconsideration is emphasized in A.M. No.
likewise denied the motion for reconsideration on February 11, 2005. 20 As a 10-4-20-SC, as amended (Internal Rules of the Supreme Court). Section 3,
result, petitioner Go elevated the case to the CA via petition for review under Rule 15 of which states:
Rule 43 of the Rules.21
SEC. 3. Second motion for reconsideration. – The Court shall not entertain a
Meanwhile, the Court resolved G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570 when Go, Sr. v. second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be
Ramos22 was promulgated on September 4, 2009. The decision sustained the granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at
October 25, 2004 Decision and February 16, 2005 Resolution of the CA in CA- least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is reconsideration "in the
G.R. SP No. 85143. higher interest of justice" when the assailed decision is not only legally
erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing
More than a month after, on October 28, 2009, the CA dismissed the Rule 43 unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second
petition, holding that the April 17, 2002 Decision of the Board which was the motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to
subject of appeal to the OP, had already become final and executor. The CA be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court’s
denied petitioner Go’s motion for reconsideration on March 22, 2010; hence, declaration.
this petition raising the issues as follows:
In the Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a second
1. The Honorable Court erred in dismissing the instant petition; motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.

2. The Honorable Court erred in declaring that the April 17, 2002 The Court has the power prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a
Decision of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation in BSI-D.C. No. case from their operation of and when justice requires it. In the exercise of
ADD-01-117 is final and executor; and sound discretion, we may determine issues which are of transcendental
importance. This case is definitely not an exception.
3. The Honorable Court erred in not ruling on the irregularity of the
issuance of the Office of the President of its September 29, 2004 and Upon examination of the records of G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570, We found
February 11, 2005 Resolutions.23 that on August 18, 2010 petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Attach a Second
Motion for Reconsideration and the Second Motion for Reconsideration were
denies and noted without action, respectively. Thus, the CA is correct in ruling
We deny.
that the April 17, 2002 Decision of the Board may no longer be reviewed as it
already attained finality and should remain so. Based on the principle of
Petitioner Go presume that the April 17, 2002 Decision of the Board has not immutability of judgment, a decision must become final and executor at some
yet attained finality due to the pendency of his Motion for Leave to Admit point in time; all litigations must necessarily come to an end.
Attached Second (2nd) Motion for Reconsideration, which this Court allegedly
failed to resolve. He is mistaken.
Xxx A definitive final judgment, however erroneous, is no longer subject to
change or revision.
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This review of the proceedings below but a full-blown, adversarial, trial-type
quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if proceedings where the rules of evidence are strictly observed. The Court
the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. disagreed and opined that the jurisdiction of the BI is not divested by mere
And this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court claim of citizenship, it was held;
that rendered it or by the highest court in the land. The orderly administration
of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the There can be no question that the Board has the authority to hear and
judgments/resolutions of a court much reach a point of finality set by the law. determine the deportation case against a deportee and in the process
The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a determine also the question of citizenship raised by him. However, this Court,
fundamental principle our justice system, without which there would be no end following American jurisprudence, laid down the exception to the primary
to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be jurisdiction enjoyed by the deportation board in the case of Chua Hiong v.
maintained by those who exercise the power adjudication. Any act, which Deportation Board wherein we stressed that judicial determination is permitted
violates such principle, must immediately be struck down. Indeed, the principle in cases when the courts themselves believe that there is substantial evidence
of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the supporting the claim of citizenship so substantial that there are reasonable
judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but extends to all bodies grounds for the belief that the claim is correct. Moreover, when the evidence
upon which judicial powers had been conferred. Xxx26 submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate
review should also be recognized and the courts shall promptly enjoin the
Subject to certain recognized exceptions such a (1) the correction of clerical deportation proceedings.
errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any
party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the While we are mindful that resort to the courts may be had, the same should be
finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable, which are allowed only in the sound discretion of a competent court in proper
not present in this case, the principle of immutability leaves the judgment proceedings. After all, the Board’s jurisdiction is not divested by the mere
1âwphi1

undisturbed as nothing further can be done except to execute it.27 claim of citizenship. Moreover, a deportee who claims to be a citizen and not
therefore subject to deportation has the right to have his citizenship reviewed
Notably, the subject matters of Go, Sr. and the present case are essentially by the courts, after the deportation proceedings. The decision of the Board on
the same as both involve identical facts and evidence. Necessarily, this case the question is of course, not final but subject to review by the courts.
should be disposed in the same way that G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570 in
Go, Sr. were resolved. After a careful evaluation of the evidence, the appellate court was not
convinced that the same was sufficient to oust the Board of its jurisdiction to
In Go, Sr. which was promulgated on September 4, 2009, the validity of the continue with the deportation proceedings considering that what were
April 17, 2002 BI Decision that ordered the apprehension and deportation of presented particularly the birth certificated of Jimmy, as well as those of his
petitioner Go was already passed upon with finality. Therein, one of the issues siblings, Juliet Go and Carlos Go, Jr. indicate that they are Chinese citizens.
presented for resolution was whether the evidence adduced by petitioner Go Furthermore, like the Board, it found the election of Carlos of Philippine
and his father, Go, Sr., to prove their claim of Philippine citizenship is citizenship, which was offered as additional proof of his claim, irregular as it
substantial and sufficient to oust the BI of its jurisdiction from continuing with was not made on time.
the deportation proceedings in order to give way to a formal judicial action to
pass upon the issue of alienage, While petitioner Go and Go, Sr. conceded We find no cogent reason to overturn the above findings of the appellate
that BI has jurisdiction to hear cases against an alleged alien, they insisted tribunal. The question of whether substantial evidence had been presented to
that judicial intervention may be resorted to when the claim to citizenship is so allow immediate recourse to the regular court is a question of fact which is
substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that claim is correct. beyond this Court’s power of review for it is not a trier of facts. None of the
They posited that the judicial intervention required is not merely a judicial
exceptions in which this Court may resolve factual issues has been shown to b. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
exist in this case. Even if we evaluate their arguments and the evidence they founded on the same facts; and
presented once again, the same conclusion will still be reached.28
c. The identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment
The Bureau of Immigration is the agency that can best determine whether rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is
petitioner Go violated certain provisions of C.A. No. 613, as amended. In this successful, amount to res judicata in the under consideration.32
jurisdiction, courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the
sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of In Go, Sr. petitioner Go and Go, Sr. challenged in G.R. Nos. 167569 and
activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such 167570 the October 25, 2004 Decision and February 16, 2005 Resolution of
agencies.29 By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 85143, which affirmed the January 6, 2004
departments over matters falling within their jurisdiction, they are in a better Decision and May 3, 2004 Order of the Pasig RTC in SCA No. 2218 that
position to pass judgment thereon and their findings of fact in that regard are upheld the Charge Sheet dated July 3, 2001 and the April 17, 2002 Decision
generally accorded respect, if not finality by the courts.30 of the Board. We eventually affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution.

Moreover, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules generally bars any On the other hand, in this case petitioner Go seeks to nullify the October 28,
question pertaining to the factual issues. The well-settled rule is that questions 2009 Decision and March 22, 2010 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No.
of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review under Rule 45, subject only to 88840 ruling that the April 17, 2002 Decision had already become final
certain exceptions, among them, the lack of sufficient support in evidence of executor in view of Our Decision in Go, Sr. To note, after filing G.R. Nos.
the trial court’s judgment or the appellate court’s misapprehension of the 167569 and 167570 before this Court, petitioner Go still appealed the same
adduced facts.31 None of the exceptions was convincingly shown to be present April 17, 2002 Board Decision to the Office of the President. Unfortunately for
in this case. him, the OP also denied his appeal and motion for reconsideration. With the
denial, he filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA, which, as
In addition, this Court cannot let it pass to declare that petitioner Go is guilty of aforesaid, sustained the BI Decision.
forum-shopping
We have held in Tze Sun Wong v. Kenny Wong33 that from the denial of the
Forum shopping is defined as: motion for reconsideration by the BI Board of Commissioners, the aggrieved
party has three (3) options: (a) he may file an appeal directly to the CA via
[w]hen a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, Rule 43 provided that he shows that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same doctrine attend; (b) absent any of the exceptions, he may exhaust the
transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising available administrative remedies within the executive machinery, namely, an
substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely appeal to the Secretary of Justice and then to the OP, and thereafter, appeal
by some other court. the OP’s decision via Rule 43; or (c) he may directly resort certiorari before the
CA strictly on jurisdictional grounds, provided that he explains why any of the
Forum shopping consists of the following elements: aforementioned remedies cannot be taken as "adequate and speedy."

a. Identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same Petitioner Go availed of remedies (b) and (c) above in his desire to obtain a
interests in both actions; favorable judgment. In Go, Sr., petitioner Go, together with his father, elevated
the case to the CA via Rule 65 petition. In this case, he immediately appealed
to the OP, by-passing the Secretary of Justice.
Similar to Go, Sr., ruling on whether petitioner Go is a Filipino citizen is not
what We are called upon to in this case. The Court does not even have to rule
1âwphi 1

once more on the issue of citizenship to determine whether the BI proceedings

may be enjoined to give way to a judicial determination of the same because
the matter was already passed upon with finality in Go, Sr. At this moment,
petitioner’s Philippine citizenship claim cannot be settled before Us. There are
factual issues that make his citizenship controversial; hence, must first be
resolved before the BI and not before the Supreme Court, which is not a trier
of facts.34

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant petition for review on

certiorari is DENIED. The October 28, 2009 Decision and March 22, 2010
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88840, which affirmed
as final the April 17, 2002 Decision of the Bureau of Immigration, are
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice