1st meeting 10 statcon cases

7/28/2019 1st meeting 10 StatCon Cases

1/93


2/93


3/93


4/93


5/93


6/93


7/93


8/93


9/93


10/93


11/93


12/93


13/93


14/93


15/93


16/93


17/93


18/93


19/93


20/93


21/93


22/93


23/93


24/93


25/93


26/93


27/93


28/93


29/93


30/93


31/93


32/93


33/93


34/93


35/93


36/93


37/93


38/93


39/93


40/93


41/93


42/93


43/93


44/93


45/93


46/93


47/93


48/93


49/93


50/93


51/93


52/93


53/93


54/93


55/93


56/93


57/93


58/93


59/93


60/93


61/93


62/93


63/93


64/93


65/93


66/93


67/93


68/93


69/93


70/93


71/93


72/93


73/93


74/93


75/93


76/93


77/93


78/93


79/93


80/93


81/93


82/93


83/93


84/93


85/93


86/93


87/93


88/93


89/93


90/93


91/93


92/93

Clearly then, the reglementary period for filingan appeal in a habeas corpus case is now similar to that in ordinary civil action s[13] and isgoverned by Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997Rules of Court, which provides:

SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal. -- Theappeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) daysfrom notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal isrequired, 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 period of appeal shall be interrupted by atimely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of timeto file a motion for new trial or reconsiderationshall be allowed.

In this light, the appeal was seasonably filedwithin the 15-day reglementary period.

Stare Decisis

Petitioner insists, however, that the applicationof Section 18, Rule 41 under the Revised Rulesof Court must be maintained under the doctrineof stare decisis .[14] , Thus he urges the Court toapply precedents that held that the 48-hour

period for perfecting an appeal was mandatoryand jurisdictional. He specifically cites Saulo v.Cruz ,[15] Garcia v. Echiverr i[16] and Elepante v.

Madayag .[17]

The principle cited by petitioner is anabbreviated form of the maxim Stare decisis, et non quieta movere. [18] That is, When the courthas once laid down a principle of law asapplicable to a certain state of facts, it willadhere to that principle and apply it to all futurecases where the facts are substantially thesame. [19] This principle assures certainty andstability in our legal system .[20] It should bestressed that stare decisis presupposes that thefacts of the precedent and the case to which it isapplied are substantially the same. In this case,there is one crucial difference. All the incidentsof the present controversy occurred when the1997 Revised Rules of Court was already in

effect. On the other hand, all the cited precedents had been resolved under the pre-1997Rules. Accordingly, stare decisis cannot compelthis Court to apply to the present case thealleged precedents decided during the regime of the pre-1997 Rules. The cited cases applied aspecific provision of the Rules in effect at thetime. But because that provision had already

been repealed when the facts under presentconsideration occurred, the Court can no longer rely on those cases. Indeed, to rule otherwise isto bar the effectivity of the 1997 amendments,which conflict with jurisprudence decided under an old and repealed rule. Verily, petitionerscontention effectively precludes changes andfreezes our procedural rules.

Subject of the Notice of Appeal

As earlier observed, the Notice of Appealrefer red to the judgment of the HonorableCourt in the above-stated case, dated January 29,1999. Petitioner now argues that the Notice wasimproper because it referred to the Order denying respondents Motion for Reconsideration, not the Decision itself whichwas dated January 7, 1999. He cites Section 1 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules, which provides thatan order denying a motion for a new trial or areconsideration may not be appealed .[21]

Respondents, on the other hand, claim that because the Notice of Appeal contained theword judgment, their clear intent was toappeal the Decision.

We agree with respondents. In referring to thetrial courtsjudgment, respondents were clearlyappealing the January 7, 1999 Decision. Hadthey thought otherwise, they would havereferred to the Order. Indeed, judgment isnormally synonymous withdecision.[22] Furthermore, the wrong date of the appealed judgment may be attributed merelyto inadvertence. Such error should not, by itself,deprive respondents of their right toappeal. Time and time again, it has been heldthat courts should proceed with caution so as notto deprive a party of this right .[23] They are
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn13


93/93

encouraged to hear the merits of appealed cases;hence, the dismissal of an appeal on grounds of technicality is generally frownedupon .[24] Indeed, the postulates of justice andfairness demand that all litigants be afforded theopportunity for a full disposition of their disputes, free as much as legally possible fromthe constraints of technicalities .[25] To ruleotherwise is to let technicality triumph over substantial justice. Indeed, the real essence of

justice does not emanate from quibblings over patchwork legal technicality. [26]

Other Matters

Petitioner insists that the Order deporting him isinvalid, as he was not given notice or hearing .[27] We reject this argument because it

properly pertains to the appeal before the CA,not in these proceedings instituted merely todetermine the timeliness of the Notice of Appeal.

Likewise, we reject the submission of the Officeof the Solicitor General that the promulgation of the CA Decision resolving the appeal renderedthe present case moot and academic .[28] It should

be stressed that the validity of the proceedings before the appellate court ultimately hinges onthe issue before us: whether the Notice of Appeal was seasonably filed.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and theassailed Order AFFIRMED. The TemporaryRestraining Order issued by the Court is herebyimmediately LIFTED . No pronouncement as tocosts.

SO ORDERED
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/137571.htm#_edn24

1st meeting 10 statcon cases

Documents