TUNG CHIN HUI, petitioner, vs. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, Commissioner of Immigration; and the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, respondents; THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 137571 September 21, 2000

RATIONALE:

Stare decisis, et non quieta movere

"When the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same."

 

FACTS:

1. Tung Chin Hui, Taiwanese citizen, obtained a visa at Philippine Embassy in Singapore, and arrived in the Philippines on 05 November 1998.

2. November 15, 1998: he was arrested and turned over to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). 

3. November 25, 1998:  BID Board of Commissioners, after finding him guilty of possessing a tampered passport earlier canceled by Taiwanese authorities, ordered his summary deportation.

4. December 11, 1998:  he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus before RTC Manila on the ground of illegal detention.

5. January 11, 1999: respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court in an Order dated January 29, 1999

6. Respondents then filed a "[N]otice of [A]ppeal from the judgment of the Honorable Court in the above-stated case, dated January 29, 1999, a copy of which was received by the Bureau on February 11, 1999 and was received by the undersigned counsel on February 15, 1999. Dated February 15, 1999, it was received by the RTC on February 16, 1999 at 9:45 a.m.

7. Petitioner filed an "Opposition," claiming that the Notice had been filed beyond the 48-hour reglementary period for filing appeals in habeas corpus cases as prescribed by the pre-1997 Rules of Court. Although respondents alleged that they had received the said Order on February 15, 1999, petitioner contended that they had in fact received it on February 11, 1999, "as evidenced by the receipt of the service thereof and by the Sheriff’s Return

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Notice of Appeal was seasonably filed.

 

RULING:

YES. It was seasonably filed. Section 18, Rule 41 which provides for the 48-hour reglementary period within which to appeal habeas corpus had already been deemed repeal when it was not reproduced in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the reglementary period for filing an appeal in a habeas corpus case is now similar to that in ordinary civil actions13 and is governed by Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which provides:

"SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal. -- The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order.

The petitioner's contention that the principle of stare decisis be applied in consideration of past precedents that held filing within the 48-hr reglementary period is mandatory is bereft of merit. The 48-hr reglementary period was applied in those cases because they occurred prior to 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, 48-hr was yet to be excluded. In the present case, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which omitted such provision is already in effect.

Since the Notice of Appeal filed on February 16, 1999 or five (5) days after receipt of Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration on February 11, 1999, it is still within the 15-day reglementary period as per Sec. 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court.

Thus, the notice of appeal was seasonably filed.

Sc decision: the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Order AFFIRMED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court is hereby immediately LIFTED. No pronouncement as to costs.