According to Nagel, his direct resort to judicial courts (and in effect, bypassing the administrative machinery) is warranted by the following circumstances: (a) the BoC has no jurisdiction over the Complaint for bigamy; (b) the BoC violated basic precepts of fair play and due process; (c) he stands to suffer the great and irreparable damage of being deprived of his natural right over his minor daughter; (d) extreme urgency; and (e) he has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

Nagel’ s assertions are untenable.

As regards the first circumstance, the BoC-BI did not find him guilty of bigamy but merely ruled that he is an undesirable alien because there is substantial evidence to support his undesirability due to having bigamous marriage as shown by two court rulings on record annulling his two marriages.

At this juncture, it must be pointed out that Nagel need not be convicted in a criminal prosecution for bigamy before the BoC-BI may rule that he is an undesirable alien on the grounds that he committed bigamy. It bears stressing that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two types of cases will not inevitably govern the third.

It is well to reiterate that this case stemmed from a deportation proceeding filed against Nagel. Thus, the Bl, through the BoC-Bl, is the agency that can best determine whether an alien violated immigration laws. In this jurisdiction, courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under their special technical knowledge and training.

By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative departments over matters falling within their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon and their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts. Hence, absent any grave error, the BoC-BI’s determination that Nagel should be deported for being an undesirable alien should not be disturbed.

Anent the second circumstance, it is well to reiterate that deportation proceedings are administrative in character, summary in nature, and need not be conducted strictly in accordance with the rules of ordinary court proceedings. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. Here, Nagel has participated in every aspect of the proceedings: he submitted a Counter-Affidavit to the Affidavit-Complaint filed by Duenas; he submitted his memorandum to the charge sheet; he was able to file a motion for reconsideration from the BoC-Bi’s resolution. Hence, he was not deprived of due process.

Absent any grave error, the BoC-Bi’s determination that Nagel should be deported for being an undesirable alien should not be disturbed.

Third, Nagel’s argument, which he first raised in his Motion for Partial Reconsideration before the BoC-BI, that his case should have been dismissed outright pursuant to Immigration Memorandum Circular SBM-2015-010 and the erroneous application by the BoC-BI of BI Operations Order SBM-2014-048 is exactly a question best addressed to the agency having supervisory power over it, that is, the Department of Justice. This is why Nagel should have exhausted available administrative remedies.

In Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino 111, citing Social Security Commission v. Court of Appeals, the Court, through now Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, explained that the reason for the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies ~’rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error, may amend its decision on a given matter and decide it properly.

The principle ensures orderly procedure and withholds judicial interference until the administrative process has been allowed to duly run its course. This is but practical since availing of administrative remedies entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Even comity dictates that unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and appropriate authorities given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum, judicial recourse must be held to be inappropriate, impermissible, premature, and even unnecessary. Verily, Nagel’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies is fatal to his cause.

Finally, contrary to his claim of extreme urgency, there is nothing on record that there is already imminence in his deportation. There is no warrant for deportation yet which may be considered urgent. Moreover, recourse to the Secretary of Justice is a speedy and adequate remedy. Hence, the Court finds that Nagel has no valid reason to seek immediate judicial relief and bypass the administrative machinery.”

The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from Andre Charles Nagel v. Board of Commissioners, Bureau of Immigration (G.R. No. 244737 23 October 2023).