[CIVIL PROCEDURE] | [NO VESTED RIGHTS IN PROCEDURAL RULES] 1

[eamtrinidad]

Zulueta v. Asia Brewery, Inc.

[GR NO. 138137] | [March 8, 2001] | [Panganiban, J.]
CASE SUMMARY
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of beer. Petitioner is
a dealer-operator of an outlet selling their products. Their relationship was governed
by a Dealership Agreement. Petitioner filed a complaint in RTC Iloilo for breach of
contract and specific performance, while respondent filed a separate complaint in RTC
Makati for the collection of a sum of money amounting to around Php400,000 for beer
it delivered to the petitioner. Petitioner filed with the RTC Makati a petition for
consolidation of the cases, which was granted on Feb 13, 1997. Respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration, and was denied. Respondent received copy of such denial
on May 23, 1997. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with
the CA on August 21, 1997, which was 90 days after such receipt. Petitioner averred
that the orders of the RTC was already final and executory, since the respondent only
had 60 days within which to file an appeal pursuant to the 1997 Revised Rules of
Procedure which was promulgated during the pendency of the case.
The Court held that procedural laws may operate retroactively as to pending
proceedings even without express provision to that effect. Clearly, the designation of
a specific period of sixty days for the filing of an original action for certiorari under
Rule 65 is purely remedial or procedural in nature. It does not alter or modify any
substantive right of respondent, particularly with respect to the filing of petitions for
certiorari. Although the period for filing the same may have been effectively
shortened, respondent had not been unduly prejudiced thereby considering that he
was not at all deprived of that right.
It is a well-established doctrine that rules of procedure may be modified at any
time to become effective at once, so long as the change does not affect vested rights.
Moreover, it is equally axiomatic that there are no vested rights to rules of procedure.
The Court said that if the respondents had been more prudent or circumspect
regarding the implications of procedural changes, respondents right of action would
not have been foreclosed.
DOCTRINE
As a general rule, laws have no retroactive effect. But there are certain recognized
exceptions, such as when they are remedial or procedural in nature. This Court
explained this exception in the following language:
It is true that under the Civil Code of the Philippines, (l)aws shall have no
retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. But there are settled exceptions to
this general rule, such as when the statute is CURATIVE or REMEDIAL in nature or
when it CREATES NEW RIGHTS.
On the other hand, remedial or procedural laws, i.e., those statutes relating to
remedies or modes of procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights,
but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of such rights,
ordinarily do not come within the legal meaning of a retrospective law, nor
within the general rule against the retrospective operation of statutes.
Thus, procedural laws may operate retroactively as to pending proceedings
even without express provision to that effect. Accordingly, rules of procedure can
apply to cases pending at the time of their enactment. In fact, statutes regulating the

procedure of the courts will be applied on actions undetermined at the time of their
effectivity. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent.
FACTS
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of beer
Petitioner is a dealer-operator of an outlet selling their products
Their relationship was governed by a Dealership Agreement
Petitioner filed in RTC Iloilo a complaint for breach of contract, specific
performance, and damages for alleged violation of dealership agreement
During the pendency of this case, the respondent filed a separate case with RTC
Makati for collection of a sum of money amounting to about Php400,000 for
beer it delivered to petitioner
Petitioner moved to dismiss the Makati case because it split the cause of action
and violated the rule for multiplicity of suits. This motion was denied by Makati
Judge Rosario
Petitioner moved for Rosario to inhibit himself, which he did. The Makati case
was then raffled to Judge Parentala
Petitioner filed a motion to consolidate the cases, which Parentala granted on
Feb 13, 1997
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied on May 19,
1997. Respondent received copy of this decision on May 23, 1997.
Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65with the CA on
August 18/21, 1997 (the facts and the ratio were inconsistent as to the date),
which was 87/90 days after the receipt.
The CA ruled for the respondent, saying that there was no common issue or fact
in the two cases.
Hence this petition for certiorari under Rule 45, where petitioner avers that the
RTC orders had already become final and executory and the CA should have
dismissed respondents petition outright.
PROCEDURE SUMMARY
Action (Petition for review, appeal
of CA decision etc.)
Petitioner: complaint for breach of
contract etc
Respondent: complaint for money
collection
Petitioner: motion to dismiss Makati
case
Petitioner: motion for Rosario to inhibit
himself
Petitioner: motion to consolidate two
cases
Respondent: motion for reconsideration
Respondent: Rule 65 petition
ISSUE

Decision (RTC: petition denied)

Not noted
Not noted
RTC Makati: denied
RTC Makati: granted
RTC Makati: granted
RTC Makati: denied
CA: granted

[CIVIL PROCEDURE] | [NO VESTED RIGHTS IN PROCEDURAL RULES] 3

[eamtrinidad]
1. WON the orders of RTC Makati were already final and executory YES
2. WON consolidation of the cases was proper YES
RATIO
1. WON the orders of RTC Makati were already final and executory YES,
because respondent filed the Rule 65 petition 88/90 days after receipt
of the assailed order, beyond the 60-day reglementary period.
a. During the pendency of the case, the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure took effect on July 1, 1997, which shorted the 90-day
reglementary period to 60 days.
b. General rule: Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is
provided.
c. Exceptions: Statutes which are curative or remedial in nature, or when
they create new rights.
d. Procedural laws do not create new or take away vested rights but only
operate in furtherance of those rights.
e. Thus, they may operate retroactively as to pending proceedings even
without express provision to that effect.
f. Clearly, the designation of a specific period of sixty days for the filing of
an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is purely remedial or
procedural in nature. It does not alter or modify any substantive right of
respondent, particularly with respect to the filing of petitions for certiorari.
Although the period for filing the same may have been effectively
shortened, respondent had not been unduly prejudiced thereby
considering that he was not at all deprived of that right.
2. WON consolidation of the cases was proper YES, because the
relationship between respondent and petitioner regarding the unpaid
beer in the Makati case rose from the Dealership Agreement in the
Iloilo case.
DECISION
Petition granted
CA decision reversed and set aside