Tung Chui v. Rodriguez Facts: 1) A petition for certiorari was filed to the RTC of Manila b Tung Chin !

ui based fro" their decision. #) Tung Chin !ui$ a Taiwanese citizen$ obtained a visa at the %hilippine &"bass in 'ingapore and arrived at the %hilippines on (ov. )$ 1**+. ,) -n (ov. 1)$ he was arrested and brought to the .ureau of /""igration and 0eportation. The ./0 .oard of Co""issioners found hi" guilt of possessing a ta"pered passport which was earlier cancelled b the Taiwanese govern"ent. !e was ordered to be deported. 1) Tung Chin !ui then filed a petition for !abeas Corpus for illegal detention. The ./0 then filed a Return of 2rit which was then denied and ordered for the release fro" custod of Tung Chin !ui. )) The ./0 then filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was also denied in an order dated 3anuar #*$ 1***. 4) The order "ade on 3an #*$ 1*** was received b the bureau on Feb. 11 and was received b the undersigned counsel on Feb 1). A notice of appeal dated Feb 1) was received b the ./0 on Feb. 14$ 1***. 5) Tung Chin !ui filed an -pposition clai"ing that the notice had been filed be ond the 1+ hour regle"entar period for filing appeals in cases of !abeas corpus as prescribed in the 1**5 Rules of court. +) The notice of appeal of ./0 was accepted. *) The court issued a Te"p. Restraining -rder fro" being deported until further orders.

/ssue: 1) 2hether 'ec. 1+ of Rule 11 of the pre61**5 Rules of Court$ which provided that appeal in !abeas Corpus cases be ta7en within 1+ hours fro" notice of 8udge"ent$ has been repealed b the 1**5 Rules of Civil %rocedure$ which provides in 'ec. ,$ Rule 11 thereof$ that appeal shall be ta7en within 1) da s$ in view of the fact that 'ec. 1+ of the pre61**5 Rules of Court$ Rule 11 was o"itted in 'ec. 11 of the 1**5 Rules. 9/M%:/&0 R&%&A:)

!olding: 1) The court ruled that 'ec. 1+ was repealed and the petition was denied

Reasoning 1) There pre61**5 law stating the 1+6hour regle"entar period was not reproduced in the revision thereof covering the sa"e sub8ect and was dee"ed repealed and discarded. #) The o"ission shows the intention of the rule6"a7ing bod $ The 'upre"e Court in this case$ to repeal those provisions of the old laws that are not reproduced in the revised Code.