FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207718. January 22, 2018.]
NATHANIEL MARLING, petitioner,vs. MR. LAUREANO C. SANTOS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE OF ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION MEDICAL CENTER, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 22, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207718 — Nathaniel Marling vs. Mr. Laureano C. Santos, Vice President for Administration and Finance of Angeles University Foundation Medical Center
Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Order 2 dated June 21, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 56, in SP Proc. No. 8996 denying the Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Nathaniel Marling (petitioner). HTcADC
The antecedent facts of the case as found by the RTC are as follows:
The petitioner alleged that his wife Lyza A. Marling was admitted in the Angeles University Foundation Medical Center on April 14, 2013 for a kidney transplant operation. On May 22, 2013, the attending physician of patient Lyza A. Marling certified her to be fit to be discharged from hospital confinement because she has already fully recovered from her operation. As of May 2013, the hospital bill of patient Lyza A. Marling including the professional fees of her Doctors(sic) already amounted to Php1,720,734.56. For failure of the petitioner and his family to pay the balance of the hospital bill of patient Lyza A. Marling, Angeles University Foundation Medical Center refused to discharge the said patient who has been confined for over two (2) months. Petitioner further claimed that the hospital has been illegally detaining, illegally restraining the liberty of patient Lyza A. Marling and refusing to discharge the same. Petitioner also states that despite his offer to execute a promissory note and postdated checks, the hospital continuously detained his patient wife and continuously deprived her of her liberty. 3
On June 21, 2013, the RTC Order denied the petition for habeas corpus, the dispositive portion of which reads: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, considering the fact that the patient Lyza A. Marling is confined in a PRIVATE ROOM, the provision of Republic Act 9439 do not apply to her and the hospital Angeles University Foundation Medical Center, therefore, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED. 4
Aggrieved, petitioner filed directly before Us a petition for review on certiorari based on pure question of law, whether the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9439 5 apply to a patient confined in a private room.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied.
Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that:
Sec. 1. To what habeas corpus extends. — Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. (Emphasis ours)
In the case of So v. Hon. Tacla, Jr., et al., 6 We held that:
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the individual seeking such relief is illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or place under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual's liberty is restrainted via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.
In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a particular person is legally held. A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus, in fact, is an actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty. The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. x x x The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. 7 (Italics in the original)
"In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court or judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is being restrained of his liberty. If he is not, the writ will be refused. Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed only where such restraint exists." 8 "When the release of the persons in whose behalf the application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed is effected, the Petition for the issuance of the writ becomes moot and academic," 9 and as such, the petition should be dismissed.
In this case, Lyza A. Marling (Lyza) has already been discharged from Angeles University Foundation Medical Center (AUFMC) on July 19, 2013 as evidenced by the Clearance Slip 10 issued by hospital. Thus, with the discharge of Lyza, the petition for habeas corpus had been rendered moot. "Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Thus, the well-settled rule that courts will not determine a moot question. Where the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, thus rendering the resolution of the same of no practical value." 11 aScITE
Since the petition has been rendered moot and academic by the discharge of Lyza from the AUFMC, We deem it no longer necessary to pass upon the other issues of the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Order dated June 21, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 56 in SP Proc. No. 8996 is AFFIRMED. The Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner Nathaniel Marling is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-18.
2. Rendered by Judge Irin Zenaida S. Buan; id. at 20-21.
3.Id. at 20.
4.Id. at 21.
5. AN ACT PROHIBITING THE DETENTION OF PATIENTS IN HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CLINICS ON GROUNDS OF NONPAYMENT OF HOSPITAL BILLS OR MEDICAL EXPENSES. Approved on April 27, 2007.
6. 648 Phil. 149 (2010).
7.Id. at 161-162, citing Ampatuan v. Judge Macaraig, et al., 636 Phil. 269, 279 (2010).
8.Supra note 6, at 162.
9.In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Gonzales and Mesa (Pulido vs. Gen. Abu), 553 Phil. 450, 462 (2007).
10.Rollo, p. 85.
11. Supra note 6, at 462-463.