G.R. Nos.

168992-93

May 21, 2009

IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM, MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM, MONINA P. LIM, Petitioner. D E C I S I O N CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Monina P. Lim (petitioner) seeking to set aside the Decision1 dated 15 September 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, Branch 22 (trial court), in SPL. PROC. Case Nos. 12 58 and 1259, which dismissed without prejudice the consolidated petitions for ad option of Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim. The Facts The following facts are undisputed. Petitioner is an optometrist by profession. On 23 June 1974, she married Primo Lim (Lim). They were childless. Minor childre n, whose parents were unknown, were entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban (Ayuban). Being so eager to have a child of their own, petitioner and Lim regist ered the children to make it appear that they were the children s parents. The chi ldren2 were named Michelle P. Lim (Michelle) and Michael Jude P. Lim (Michael). Michelle was barely eleven days old when brought to the clinic of petitioner. Sh e was born on 15 March 1977.3 Michael was 11 days old when Ayuban brought him to petitioner s clinic. His date of birth is 1 August 1983.4 The spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were their own. They se nt the children to exclusive schools. They used the surname "Lim" in all their s chool records and documents. Unfortunately, on 28 November 1998, Lim died. On 27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel Olario (Olario), an American citizen. Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the childre Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a sworn statement filed with the POEA, ch arged petitioner with illegal recruitment. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Mar quez sent petitioner a telegram directing him to appear to the POEA regarding th e complaint against him. On the same day, after knowing that petitioner had no l icense to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas Ac hacoso issued a Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to petitioner. It stated that there will a seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified th at petitioner has (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment; (2) Commit ted/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in rel ation to Article 38 of the same code. A team was then tasked to implement the sa id Order. The group, accompanied by mediamen and Mandaluyong policemen, went to petitioner s residence. They served the order to a certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who let them in. The team confiscated assorted costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a letter requesting for the return of the seized properties, because she was no t given prior notice and hearing. The said Order violated due process. She also alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of Rights, and the properties were co

nfiscated against her will and were done with unreasonable force and intimidatio n. Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code Held: Under the new Constitution, . . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest sh all issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge af ter examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses h e may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the pers ons or things to be seized . Mayors and prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held, We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the au thorities must go through the judicial process. To that extent, we declare Artic le 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and ef fect The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It (the power to order arrests) cannot be made to exten d to other cases, like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole do main of the courts. Furthermore, the search and seizure order was in the nature o f a general warrant. The court held that the warrant is null and void, because i t must identify specifically the things to be seized. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. The respondents are ORDERED to r eturn all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizu re Order No. 1205.