Domingo v.

Scheer
GR No. 154745
January 29, 2004
Article 3
FACTS:
This is a petition for review under Rule 45, of the decision of the Court of Appeals
granting the respondents petition for certiorari and prohibition annulling the order of arrest
issued by petitioner, and permanently enjoining her from deporting the respondent from the
Philippines. The appellate court reversed the Summary Deportation Order of the Board of
Commissioners.
Respondent Scheer is a native of Germany, who was eventually granted a permanent
resident status in the Philippines. He eventually married here and started a family as well as a
business in Palawan. Vice Consul Hippelein informed the Philippine Ambassador to Germany
that the respondent had police records and financial liabilities in Germany. The DFA receive
from the German Embassy in Manila that the respondent is wanted in Germany, and requested to
turn over his German passport to the Embassy. Thereafter BOC issued a Summary Deportation
Order dated September 27, 1997. It was stated that the deportation shall be held in abeyance
pending respondents case and he shall remain in the custody of the bureau. In issuing this the
BOC relied on the statements of the German Vice Consul on the speculation that it is improbable
that the respondent will be issued a new passport, the warrant of arrest for insurance fraud and
alleged illegal activities in Palawan. Respondent nevertheless stayed in the Philippines after
airing his side to then BID Commissioner Verceles, the latter giving him time to apply for a
clearance and a new passport. Scheer eventually filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration
stating that his right to due process was violated, for there was no notice or chance to be heard
before the issuance of the deportation order. Eventually the criminal case for physical injuries
against the respondent was dismissed, and he was issued a passport. He informed Commissioner
Verceles about this matter and reiterated the cancellation of the order, but the Commissioner did
not respond. Thereafter Commissioner Domingo assumed office and on June 6, 2002, she
ordered the apprehension of the respondent who was held in custody awaiting deportation.
Shocked, respondent sought remedy with the CA, during the hearing of which the Solicitor
General suggested that the respondent leave the country first then just re-apply. A decision was
reached in favor of Scheer, permanently enjoining Domingo from continuing the deportation,
thus this petition.
ISSUE(S):
1. Whether or not the BOC was an indispensable party to the case.
2. Whether or not respondents arrest and detention was premature, unwarranted and
arbitrary.
HELD:
Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio

1. Yes but not enough to invalidate the petition.

Petitioner argues that the respondent must have impleaded BOC as the respondent, and not
Commissioner Domingo alone. The Summary Deportation Order was issued by the BOC as a
whole and Domingo is just but one Commissioner so the petitioner argues that the action may be
dismissed. The court ruled that it agrees with the petitioner that the BOC was an indispensable
party to the respondents petition in the CA. However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is
not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be added as ordered by the court and if
the petitioner refuses to implead an indispensable party, then the petition may be dismissed. In
the case at bar, CA did not require to implead BOC as the respondent so it does not warrant the
dismissal of respondents petition. The court may choose to amend the processes and the
pleadings by substituting as party-plaintiff the real party-interest, but the court also has the power
to avoid delay in the disposition of cases and it may just be unnecessary to still choose to
implead BOC. The OSG has already represented the petitioner in instant proceedings thus the
BOC cannot claim that it was not afforded the opportunity to be in court. Proceedings may be to
facilitate justice but they do not constitute the thing itself and they may be relaxed in certain
cases.
2. Yes.
The Court ruled that BOC committed grave abuse of discretion in causing the arrest and
detention of the respondent. Aliens may be deported from the Philippines only on grounds and in
the proper manner provided by the Constitution. The United Nations Declaration on Human
Rights grants every person rights, and that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention
or exile. BOC ordered respondents deportation without even conducting summary deportation
proceedings, but merely relied on the speculation of the German Embassy and the Vice Consul
that it is improbable that the respondent will be issued a new passport, warranting the
deportation. The respondent was not afforded any hearing at all, and not given the opportunity to
put up a defense for himself, thus violating his right to due process. A deportation proceeding
may not be a criminal action, but since it affects the liberty of a person, the right to due process
of a respondent must be respected. Even six years after the motion for reconsideration of the
respondent which was still not attended to, out of nowhere and arbitrarily the agents were
ordered to arrest him. Even after being issued a new passport and even securing clearances from
the PNP and NPA, the BOC still proceeded with the deportation. BOC is required to resolve the
motion of the respondent first, giving him the chance to be heard and present his evidence. The
petitioner put up the defense that they cannot review cases decided before the change of
members, but since it is the same government entity, they have the authority to review past cases.
In addition, the court finds the contention of the OSG for the respondent to leave the country
then just re-apply again ridiculous when there is no legal impediment for the respondent to
continue his stay in the country.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio

Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio