G.R. No. 137571 - Tung Chin Hui vs. Rodriguez

Petitioner, a Taiwanese citizen, obtained a visa at the Philippine Embassy in Singapore and arrived in the Philippines on November 5, 1998.
On November 15, 1998, he was arrested by policemen and subsequently turned over to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID).
On November 25, 1998, following the discovery that petitioner possessed a tampered passport previously canceled by Taiwanese authorities, the BID Board of Commissioners ordered his summary deportation.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus on December 11, 1998, claiming that his detention was illegal.
Respondents, representing the immigration authorities, filed a Return of Writ contradicting his claim.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila rendered a Decision on January 7, 1999, granting the Petition and ordering petitioner’s release from custody.
On January 11, 1999, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration; the RTC denied this motion in an Order dated January 29, 1999.

Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal against the RTC decision. There is a dispute about the precise date of receipt of the RTC order, with petitioner contending the notice was filed after the 48‑hour reglementary period prescribed by the pre‑1997 Rules of Court.
According to records, the Notice of Appeal was received as follows:

Reception of the RTC Order on February 11, 1999 (as alleged by petitioner).
A subsequent record showing receipt on February 15, 1999, when the RTC received the copy at 9:45 a.m.

In a later order dated February 18, 1999, the RTC rejected petitioner’s contention regarding the lateness of the appeal and granted due course to the Notice of Appeal.
Petitioner then filed another Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the Notice improperly referred to the RTC Order denying reconsideration rather than to the decision itself.
On March 2, 1999, the RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
On March 22, 1999, a Temporary Restraining Order was issued by the Court directing the respondents to cease deporting petitioner pending further orders.

The case is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the RTC’s March 2, 1999 Order, raising pure questions of law regarding the appeal period.
A crucial contention is whether the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal in habeas corpus cases is determined by the (now-repealed) 48‑hour period of Section 18, Rule 41 of the pre‑1997 Rules or by the 15‑day period prescribed for ordinary civil actions under the 1997 Rules of Court.
Additional factual issues include technical errors in the reference contained within the Notice of Appeal (i.e., the mention of “judgment” rather than “order”) and whether such errors should bar the right to appeal.

What is the applicable reglementary period for filing an appeal in habeas corpus cases now that the 48‑hour period under the pre‑1997 Rules has been omitted in the 1997 Rules of Court?

Is the period to appeal a habeas corpus case now uniformly 15 days from the notice of the judgment or order?
Or does the old 48‑hour rule still persist by virtue of stare decisis?

Is the provision of Section 1, sub‑paragraph (a) of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure—prohibiting appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration—mandatory or discretionary on the part of the lower courts?

Are petitions for writs of habeas corpus, which involve the liberty of persons detained, to be treated on a special procedural footing or should they be brought down to the level of ordinary cases?

Does the technical error in the Notice of Appeal (referring to the wrong dated order) affect its validity and the right to be heard on the merits?