Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

PROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF THE RULES OF COURT

BERMEJO V. BARRIOS
The Rules of Court are not penal statutes, and they cannot be given retroactive
effect.
APPLICABILITY TO PENDING ACTIONS; RETROACTIVITY
IN THE MATTER TO DECLARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT HON. SIMEON
DATUMANONG
Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed
retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive
application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative of any personal rights
because no vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom.
PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC V. GO KO
In view of its purpose, the Resolution further amending Section 4, Rule 65 can only
be described as curative in nature, and the principles governing curative statutes
are applicable.
Curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legal
proceedings which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain legal
requirements. They are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities and curb
certain evils. They are intended to enable persons to carry into effect that which
they have designed or intended, but has failed of expected legal consequence by
reason of some statutory disability or irregularity in their own action. They make
valid that which, before the enactment of the statute was invalid. Their purpose is
to give validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if
existing laws have been complied with. Curative statutes, therefore, by their very
essence, are retroactive.
GO VS. SUNBANUN
"[P]rocedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage, there being novested rights in the rules
of procedure."
Neypes, which we rendered in September 2005, has been applied retroactively to a
numberof cases wherein the original period to appeal had already lapsed
subsequent to the denial of the motion for reconsideration.Aurora's situation is no
exception, and thus she is entitled to benefit from the amendment of the procedural
rules.
FIRST AQUA SUGAR TRADERS VS BPI
In the light of this decision, a party litigant may now file his notice of appeal either
within fifteen days from receipt of the original decision or within fifteen days from
the receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. Being procedural in
nature, Neypes is deemed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at
the time of its effectivity and is thus retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
IN WHAT CASES RULES OF COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE
ATIENZA VS BOARD OF MEDICINE
It is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings
before administrative bodies such as the BOM.

BANTOLINO VS COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHIL., INC.


The argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants were not presented
for cross examination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not
strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC, where
decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.
PANUNCILLO VS CAP, PHILS. INC.
We reiterate the rule that technicalities have no room in labor cases where the Rules
of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner and only to effectuate the
objectives of the Labor Code and not to defeat them.
ONG CHIA VS REPUBLIC
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule
132, 34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not applicable to the present
case involving a petition for naturalization.
CONDITION PRECEDENT
KATARANGUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
LUMBUAN VS RONQUILLO
The confrontation before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient
compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court.
PAYMENT OF FILING FEES
HEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG VS MELICOR, reiterating SUN INSURANCE
OFFICE, LTD. VS ASUNCION
While the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even
its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of
the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness
to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient filing fees
were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the
government, the Manchester rule does not apply.
RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
PURPOSES
F.A.T. KEY COMPUTER SYSTEM VS ONLINE NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
On this preliminary procedural issue, we rule that the non-attachment of the
relevant portions of the TSN does not render the petition of FAT KEE fatally
defective.
Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court indeed requires the attachment to the
petition for review on certiorari "such material portions of the record as would
support the petition."59 However, such a requirement was not meant to be an
ironclad rule such that the failure to follow the same would merit the outright
dismissal of the petition.
Given that the TSN of the proceedings before the RTC forms part of the records of
the instant case, the failure of FAT KEE to attach the relevant portions of the TSN
was already cured by the subsequent elevation of the case records to this Court.
This pronouncement is likewise in keeping with the doctrine that procedural rules

should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective and assist the
parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or
proceeding.
CITY OF DUMAGUETE VS PHIL PORTS AUTHORITY
Procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent
application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial
justice, the former must yield to the latter.
ALCANTARA VS PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL BANK
Lapses in the literal observation of a procedural rule will be overlooked when they
do not involve public policy, when they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen
accident, and when they have not prejudiced the adverse party or deprived the
court of its authority.
EXTENT AND SCOPE OF THE RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTIONS;
EXCEPTION
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS MIGRANT PAGBILAO
CORPORATION
It is already well-settled in this jurisdiction that a party may not change his theory of
the case on appeal. The BIR Commissioner pleads with this Court not to apply the
foregoing rule to the instant case, for a rule on technicality should not defeat
substantive justice. The BIR Commissioner apparently forgets that there are specific
reasons why technical or procedural rules are imposed upon the courts, and that
compliance with these rules, should still be the general course of action. The courts
have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a case
from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of
justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit
suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the courts.
ABRENICA VS LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA, TUNGOL AND TIBAYAN
This does not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained
at will to suit the convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the
orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of
substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice,
despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes.
rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive
reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate
with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal
application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party
invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.
GENERAL RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTIONS; EXCEPTION
PILAPIL VS HEIRS OF BRIONES
Compliance with the procedural rules is the general rule, and abandonment thereof
should only be done in the most exceptional circumstances. The presumptions
relied upon by this Court in the instant case are disputable presumptions, which are
satisfactory, unless contradicted or overcome by evidence.
BARANGAY DASMARINAS VS CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL