8. DOMINGO V.

SCHEER

GR No. 154745 | January 29, 2004 | Impleading indispensable party |

Rein
Petitioner: Commissioner Andrea Domingo, BID (immig. & deport.)
Respondents: Herbert Scheer
Recit-Ready: “German, indispensable party must be impleaded but failure to
do so won’t always invalidate the petition”
Scheer is a German native who married, started a family and had a business in
Palawan. Later on, it was discovered that he is wanted in Germany and DFA
requested the turnover of his passport. Summary deportation was ordered by
BOC but it was held in abeyance pending Scheer’s case and he shall remain
with BOC’s custody. BOC relied ion the statements of German Vice Consul
that it’s improbable for respondent to be issued new passport. He stayed in the
Philippines and aired his side to BID Commissioner Verceles who gave him
time to apply for a new passport. Scheer filed an MR stating that his right to
due process was violated since there was no notice or chance for him to be
heard before the issuance of the deportation order. The criminal case for
physically injuries against Scheer was dismissed and he was issued a new
passport. Scheer informed Commissioner Verceles about this but he got no
response. Thereafter, Verceles assumed office and ordered Scheer’s
apprehension.
Issue: (Main): Whether or not the BOC was an indispensable party to the case.
Held: Yes – but not enough to invalidate the petition.
Petitioner argues that the Scheer 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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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.
FACTS:
1. This is a petition for review under Rule 45, of the decision of the Court of
Appeals granting the respondent’s 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 (Board of Commissioners) issued a
Summary Deportation Order dated September 27, 1997. It was stated that
the deportation shall be held in abeyance pending respondent’s 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 given the
warrant of arrest for insurance fraud and alleged illegal activities in
Palawan.
4. 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.
5. Thereafter Commissioner Domingo assumed office and on June 6, 2002, Nations Declaration on Human Rights grants every person rights, and that no one
she ordered the apprehension of the respondent who was held in custody shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. BOC ordered respondent’s
awaiting deportation. Shocked, respondent sought remedy with the CA, deportation without even conducting summary deportation proceedings, but
during the hearing of which the Solicitor General suggested that the merely relied on the speculation of the German Embassy and the Vice Consul that it
respondent leave the country first then just re-apply. A decision was is improbable that the respondent will be issued a new passport, warranting the
reached in favor of Scheer, permanently enjoining Domingo from deportation. The respondent was not afforded any hearing at all, and not given the
continuing the deportation, thus this petition.
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
ISSUES:
liberty of a person, the right to due process of a respondent must be respected.
1. Whether or not the BOC was an indispensable party to the case.
2. Whether or not respondent’s arrest and detention was premature, Even six years after the motion for reconsideration of the respondent which was
unwarranted and arbitrary. (Not civpro) 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
RATIO: required to resolve the motion of the respondent first, giving him the chance to be
1. Yes – but not enough to invalidate the petition. heard and present his evidence. The petitioner put up the defense that they cannot
Petitioner argues that the respondent must have impleaded BOC as the respondent, review cases decided before the change of members, but since it is the same
and not Commissioner Domingo alone. The Summary Deportation Order was issued government entity, they have the authority to review past cases. In addition, the
by the BOC as a whole and Domingo is just but one Commissioner so the petitioner court finds the contention of the OSG for the respondent to leave the country then
argues that the action may be dismissed. The court ruled that it agrees with the just re-apply again ridiculous when there is no legal impediment for the respondent
petitioner that the BOC was an indispensable party to the respondent’s petition in to continue his stay in the country.
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 respondent’s 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