[ G.R. No. 242957. February 28, 2023 ]
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND THE JAIL WARDEN, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER, PETITIONERS, VS. YUAN WENLE, RESPONDENT.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/feb2023/gr_242957_2023.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
"I. On the Propriety of Resorting to Rule 45 in Assailing the RTC's Decision or Final Order Disposing a Habeas Corpus Case
A. Existence of a Question of Law
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.44 Moreover, such questions must be of such substance as to be of distinctly significant consequence and value.45 A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.46 Accordingly, for a question to be one of law, its resolution must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants, but must rely solely on what the law provides on the given set of facts.47 Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.48 Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.49
In this case, the Court finds respondent's argument – that the issue on whether he was accorded due process – to be a question of law. The records clearly show that the alleged denial of due process was anchored on the RTC's finding that the SDO's very nature did not give respondent a chance to present or mount his defense. Although the RTC did not pass upon the constitutionality or validity of SDOs, invalidating the July 26, 2018 SDO and its effects on the ground that the Omnibus Rules purportedly do not give arrested aliens any opportunity to assail such issuance amounts to an indirect approach of challenging these procedural rules themselves. Such observations demonstrate that there is no need for this Court to examine anew the probative value of any evidence for the purpose of determining the existence of due process. As it stands now, respondent sufficiently justified its recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court by presenting a legal question for resolution.
B. Pursuit of the Proper Remedy
The current version of Sec. 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court reads as follows:
Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. – The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellants shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order. However, an appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. (Emphases supplied)
The mandatory nature of the 48-hour reglementary period of appeal in habeas corpus cases ensures that no unnecessary time will be wasted before a decision or final order will be re-evaluated.50 Corollary, the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, jurisdictional, and mandatory; that is why it should be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law.51 Verily, the reason why competent courts in habeas corpus proceedings have no other alternative but to dismiss an appeal filed out of time is that Sec. 39 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 12952 (B.P. Blg. 129) clearly states:
Section 39. Appeals. – The period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision appealed from: Provided however, That in habeas corpus cases, the period for appeal shall be forty-eight (48) hours from the notice of the judgment appealed from.
No record on appeal shall be required to take an appeal. In lieu thereof, the entire record shall be transmitted with all the pages prominently numbered consecutively, together with an index of the contents thereof.
This section shall not apply in appeals in special proceedings and in other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under applicable provisions of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied)
However, by way of exception, there are other available remedies aside from that provided in Sec. 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court against an adverse judgment or final order in a habeas corpus case. For one, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and is considered no judgment at all in legal contemplation as it may even be subject to a collateral attack.53 Since it has been settled that the RTC has no jurisdiction to entertain pleas against an SDO issuance in a habeas corpus proceeding for the power to deport aliens is vested with the President through the Bureau,54 a writ of certiorari – a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction55 — may also issue in such instance. In some cases, a party may also opt to challenge an adverse judgment or final order not on the basis of factual misappreciation, but of legal misapplication or misinterpretation. Under such circumstance, elevating an adverse RTC decision or final order directly to this Court on appeal by certiorari (Rule 45) is proper.
Even though the Court of Appeals (CA) may, at times, pass upon questions of law in appellate proceedings under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court,56 it has been recognized in Elepante v. Madayag,57 that an appeal in habeas corpus cases may be taken directly to this Court on pure questions of law.58 This is also in deference to Sec. 5(2)(e), Art. VIII of the Constitution which empowers this Court to "[r]eview, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in" "[a]ll cases [where] only an error or question of law is involved." Therefore, the OSG did not err in availing the remedial facilities in Rule 45 in place of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court as this case, as pointed out earlier, does not need a re-examination or recalibration of evidentiary weight."
