GR 4073; (September, 1908) (Digest)

G.R. No. 4073

TAN CONG, petitioner-appellant, vs. M. L. STEWART, Acting Director of Prisons, respondent-appellee.

September 12, 1908

FACTS:
Petitioner-appellant Tan Cong was discharged from detention by a single justice of the Supreme Court in a habeas corpus proceeding, having been detained “by reason of civil proceedings.” An appeal was subsequently filed from this discharge order. However, the appeal was not taken in the name of M. L. Stewart, the Acting Director of Prisons and the officer who detained the petitioner. Instead, it appears to have been taken in the name of the person who caused the imprisonment or detention.

ISSUE:
Whether the appeal from an order discharging a petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding was properly taken when the petitioner’s detention was due to civil proceedings, and the appeal was filed by the party who caused the imprisonment rather than the officer who detained the petitioner.

RULING:
No, the appeal was not properly taken and was therefore dismissed.
The Supreme Court, citing Section 1 of Act No. 654, clarified the procedure for appeals in habeas corpus cases where the prisoner is ordered released. The Act provides that “If the order of the court of judge be that the prisoner should be released, the appeal shall be taken in the name of the officer or person detained him.” While it also states that “if the detention is by reason of civil proceedings, the party in interest or the person caused the imprisonment or detention shall be entitled to control the appeal,” this right to control the appeal does not supersede the requirement that the appeal itself must be taken in the name of the officer or person detained him. Since the appeal in this case was not taken in the name of the officer or person detaining the petitioner, the Court held that it was improperly instituted and ordered its dismissal.