Case Digest (G.R. No. 137571)
Facts:
Tung Chin Hui v. Rufus B. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 137571, September 21, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Tung Chin Hui, a Taiwanese citizen; respondents are Rufus B. Rodriguez, Commissioner of Immigration, and the Board of Commissioners, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation.Petitioner entered the Philippines on November 5, 1998. He was arrested on November 15, 1998, turned over to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), and on November 25, 1998 the BID Board of Commissioners ordered his summary deportation after finding him guilty of possession of a tampered passport. On December 11, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 26), alleging illegal detention. Respondents filed a Return; the RTC rendered a Decision on January 7, 1999 granting the petition and ordering petitioner's release.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 11, 1999; the RTC denied it by Order dated January 29, 1999. Respondents then filed a Notice of Appeal which, according to respondents' submissions, was prepared February 15, 1999 and received by the RTC on February 16, 1999; petitioner contended that respondents actually received notice on February 11, 1999 and thus the Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the 48-hour reglementary period provided for habeas corpus appeals under the pre-1997 Rules (Section 18, Rule 41). In an RTC Order dated February 18, 1999, the court gave due course to the Notice of Appeal. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of that allowance; the RTC denied the motion in the assailed March 2, 1999 Order and ordered the clerk to transmit the record to the Court of Appeals within ten days.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, challenging the RTC’s March 2, 1999 Order and raising pure questions of law about the applicable reglementary period for appeals in habeas corpus cases and related issues. On March 22, 1999 the Court ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, is the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal in habeas corpus cases fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment?
- Has Section 18, Rule 41 of the pre-1997 Rules of Court (providing a 48-hour period for appeals in habeas corpus cases) been repealed by omission in the 1997 Rules?
- Is Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court — prohibiting appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration — mandatory or merely discretionary for lower courts to apply?
- Does a Notice of Appeal that mistakenly refers to the date of the order denying reconsideration (instead of the date of the decision) nevertheless constitute a valid ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)