G.R. No. L-19140; February 29, 1964
NG HUA TO and HEIRS OF ONG CHO, petitioners-appellants, vs. EMILIO GALANG, ETC., respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Ong Cho filed a P2,000 cash bond with the Bureau of Immigration on behalf of Ng Hua To, a Chinese temporary visitor. The bond stipulated that Ng Hua To would not be employed or engage in any business without the prior written consent of the Commissioner of Immigration. After an investigation, the Commissioner found that Ng Hua To had violated this condition by working as a manager of an iron grill shop. Consequently, on October 28, 1960, the Commissioner ordered the bond confiscated and directed Ng Hua To to post new bonds within three days, failing which his arrest and detention would be ordered.
Instead of complying, Ng Hua To and the heirs of Ong Cho (who had died in 1952) filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition for prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, contesting the confiscation on grounds including the bond’s extinguishment upon Ong Cho’s death, the need to proceed against his estate, an alleged extrajudicial partition of the bond, and the bond’s void form. They also argued the threatened arrest was unconstitutional. The lower court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the Commissioner of Immigration validly ordered the confiscation of the cash bond; (2) whether the death of the bondsman extinguishes the bond; and (3) whether the Commissioner’s threat of arrest is unconstitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. On the confiscation, the Court held the Commissioner acted within his authority. The bond’s clear terms allowed forfeiture upon breach of its conditions, such as unauthorized employment. The Commissioner’s finding of a violation after investigation was a valid exercise of this contractual and statutory power. The death of bondsman Ong Cho does not nullify the bond or its forfeiture. The commitment under the bond is binding and continues until its purpose is fulfilled, ensuring the visitor’s compliance with immigration conditions. Releasing the bond due to the bondsman’s death would introduce a contingency not intended by the parties and defeat the bond’s objective.
Regarding the arrest, the Court ruled the Commissioner’s action was constitutional. The threatened arrest was not a general warrant but a specific step to enforce the bond’s condition for recommitment, a necessary precursor to potential deportation under Section 37(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 613 . This administrative function is distinct from the judicial warrant requirement for criminal cases. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. They could have appealed the Commissioner’s order to the Secretary of Justice but did not, rendering their judicial petition premature. Thus, the order was affirmed.