Tung Chin Hui v Rodriguez

G.R. No. 137571 September 21,

2000 THIRD DIVISION J.
Panganiban
FACTS:
Petitioner, Tung Chin Hui is
an alien who has allegedly
entered the Philippines
illegally, and was thus turned
over to the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation
(BID).
Petitioner then filed for a writ of
habeas corpus for illegal detention
while Respondent, Rufus
B. Rodriguez as Commissioner of
Immigration filed for an appeal
five (5) days after its receipt
of the order of releasing Petitioner.
Petitioner however, contends that
the appeal was already
late under sec 18, rule 41 of the
pre-1997 Rules of Court.
Respondent on the other hand
avers that Petitioner’s claim has no
merit because such provision was
completely abrogated
by sec. 3, rule 41 of the 1997 rules
of court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appeal made by
respondent should be considered to
be late.
HELD:
NO. Sec. 18, rule 41 of the pre-
1997 Rules of Court is deemed
omitted from and
thereby repealed by the 1997 Rules
of Court, which completely
replaces Rules 1 to 71. This is
because provisions of an old law
that were not reproduced in the
revision thereof covering
the same subject are deemed
repealed and discarded; which in
this case is the intention of
the Supreme Court. Thus,
declaring the appeal of respondent
to be not considered late in its
submission to the court.
Tung Chin Hui v Rodriguez
G.R. No. 137571 September 21,
2000 THIRD DIVISION J.
Panganiban
FACTS:
Petitioner, Tung Chin Hui is
an alien who has allegedly
entered the Philippines
illegally, and was thus turned
over to the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation
(BID).
Petitioner then filed for a writ of
habeas corpus for illegal detention
while Respondent, Rufus
B. Rodriguez as Commissioner of
Immigration filed for an appeal
five (5) days after its receipt
of the order of releasing Petitioner.
Petitioner however, contends that
the appeal was already
late under sec 18, rule 41 of the
pre-1997 Rules of Court.
Respondent on the other hand
avers that Petitioner’s claim has no
merit because such provision was
completely abrogated
by sec. 3, rule 41 of the 1997 rules
of court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appeal made by
respondent should be considered to
be late.
HELD:
NO. Sec. 18, rule 41 of the pre-
1997 Rules of Court is deemed
omitted from and
thereby repealed by the 1997 Rules
of Court, which completely
replaces Rules 1 to 71. This is
because provisions of an old law
that were not reproduced in the
revision thereof covering
the same subject are deemed
repealed and discarded; which in
this case is the intention of
the Supreme Court. Thus,
declaring the appeal of respondent
to be not considered late in its
submission to the court.
ung Chin Hui v Rodriguez
G.R. No. 137571 September 21,
2000 THIRD DIVISION J.
Panganiban
FACTS:
Tung Chin Hui v Rodriguez G.R. No. 137571 September 21, 2000

FACTS: Petitioner, Tung Chin Hui is an alien who has allegedly entered the Philippines illegally, and
was thus turned over to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). Petitioner then filed for a
writ of habeas corpus for illegal detention while Respondent, Rufus B. Rodriguez as Commissioner
of Immigration filed for an appeal five (5) days after its receipt of the order of releasing Petitioner.
Petitioner however, contends that the appeal was already late under sec 18, rule 41 of the pre-1997
Rules of Court. Respondent on the other hand avers that Petitioners claim has no merit because
such provision was completely abrogated by sec. 3, rule 41 of the 1997 rules of court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appeal made by respondent should be considered to be late.

HELD: NO. Sec. 18, rule 41 of the pre-1997 Rules of Court is deemed omitted from and thereby
repealed by the 1997 Rules of Court, which completely replaces Rules 1 to 71. This is because
provisions of an old law that were not reproduced in the revision thereof covering the same subject
are deemed repealed and discarded; which in this case is the intention of the Supreme Court. Thus,
declaring the appeal of respondent to be not considered late in its submission to the court.
Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez
ISSUE: whether Sec.18 Rule 41 of the pre-1007 Rules of Court, which provided the appeal in habeas
corpus cases to be taken within 48 hours from notice of judgment, has been replaced by the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, which provides in Sec. 3 Rule 41 thereof, that appeal from judgment or final order shall
be taken within 15 days from receipt thereof, in view of the fact that the Sec. 18 was repealed, in
accordance with the well-settled rule of statutory construction that provisions of an  old law that were not
reproduced in the revision thereof covering the same subject are deemed repealed and discarded
HELD: SC in this case to abrogate those provisions of the old laws that are not reproduced in the revised
statute or Code.