G.R. No. 42461; November 26, 1934
SOO HONG CHUNG, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Soo Hong Chung arrived in Manila from Hongkong on May 21, 1934, claiming entry as an American citizen by birth and presenting a certificate from the U.S. Bureau of Immigration. A board of special inquiry of the Bureau of Customs denied his admission, finding his testimony failed to prove he was the person named in the certificate. The Collector of Customs affirmed this decision. Soo Hong Chung then filed a habeas corpus petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging the immigration authorities’ actions were arbitrary, capricious, and illegal. The court denied the petition and remanded him to custody. Two days later, he filed a motion for reconsideration on the merits, which was also denied. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal to the Supreme Court was perfected within the prescribed period under Section 4 of Act No. 654, governing appeals in habeas corpus proceedings.

RULING

No. The appeal is dismissed for being filed out of time. Section 4 of Act No. 654 requires that an appeal in habeas corpus cases be perfected by filing a statement of dissatisfaction and appeal within twenty-four hours after the order denying discharge is made. The Court held that the statutory period runs from notice of the order, and while a motion for reconsideration filed within that period may toll the time, in this case, the motion for reconsideration was filed two days after the denial order—after the 24-hour period had already lapsed. Thus, the decision of the Court of First Instance had become final before the motion was filed, and the belated motion could not revive the extinguished right to appeal. The legislative fixation of a short appeal period is a matter of policy, not subject to judicial alteration.

AI Generated by Armztrong.