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

FACTS

Petitioner Tung Chin Hui, a Taiwanese citizen, was arrested and detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) for possessing a tampered passport. He filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which granted his petition and ordered his release. The BID filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order dated January 29, 1999. On February 16, 1999, the BID filed a Notice of Appeal from the said Order.
Petitioner opposed the Notice of Appeal, arguing it was filed beyond the 48-hour reglementary period for appeals in habeas corpus cases under the pre-1997 Rules of Court. The RTC granted due course to the appeal, prompting petitioner to file this Petition for Certiorari, raising the central issue of the applicable appeal period.

ISSUE

Whether the Notice of Appeal was seasonably filed; specifically, what is the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal in habeas corpus cases under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Notice of Appeal was timely filed. The Court held that Section 18, Rule 41 of the pre-1997 Rules, which provided a 48-hour period to appeal habeas corpus cases, was deemed repealed by its omission from the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. Applying the rule of statutory construction, provisions not reproduced in a revision are considered abrogated. Consequently, the appeal period for habeas corpus cases is now uniform with ordinary civil actions under Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules, which allows fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or order. Since the respondents filed their Notice of Appeal within this 15-day period, the appeal was perfected on time. The Petition was denied, and the RTC’s order giving due course to the appeal was affirmed.