[CIVIL PROCEDURE] | [NO VESTED RIGHTS IN PROCEDURAL RULES] 1 [eamtrinidad]
Zulueta v. v. Asia Brewery, Brewery, Inc. [GR NO. 138137] | [March 8, !!1] | [Pa"#a"$%a", &.] CASE SUMMARY Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of beer. beer. Petitioner is a dealer-operator dealer-operator of an outlet selling their products. Their relationship was governed by a Dealership Agreement. Petitioner led a complaint in RT !loilo for breach of contract and specic performance, while respondent led a separate complaint in RT "a#ati for the collection of a sum of money amounting to around Php$%%,%%% for beer it delivered to the petitioner. Petitioner led with the RT "a#ati a petition for consolidation of the cases, which was granted on &eb '(, '))*. Respondent led a motion for reconsideration, and was denied. Respondent received copy of such denial on "ay +(, '))*. Respondent then led a petition for certiorari under Rule with the A on August +', '))*, which was )% days after such receipt. Petitioner averred that the orders of the RT was already nal and eecutory, eecutory, since the respondent only had % days within which to le an appeal pursuant to the '))* Revised Rules of Procedure which was promulgated during the pendency of the case. The ourt held that procedural laws may operate retroactively as to pending proceedings even without without epress provision to that e/ect. learly, learly, the designation of a specic period of sity days for the ling of an original action for certiorari under Rule is purely remedial or procedural in nature. !t does not alter or modify any substantive right of respondent, particularly with respect to the ling of petitions for certiorari. Although the period for ling the same may have been e/ectively shortened, respondent had not been unduly pre0udiced thereby considering that he was not at all deprived of that right. !t is a well-established doctrine that rules of procedure may be modied at any time to become e/ective at once, so long as the change does not a/ect vested rights. "oreover, "oreover, it is e1ually aiomatic that there are no vested rights to rules of procedure. The ourt said that if the respondents had been more prudent or circumspect regarding the implications of procedural changes, respondent2s right of action would not have been foreclosed. DOCTRINE As a general rule, laws laws have no retroactive e/ect. e/ect. 3ut there are certain recogni4ed recogni4ed eceptions, such as when they are remedial or procedural in nature. This ourt eplained this eception in the following language5 !t is true that under the ivil ode of the Philippines, 6l7aws shall have no retroactive e/ect, unless the contrary is provided. 3ut there are settled eceptions to this general rule, such as when the statute is 8RAT!9: or R:":D!A; in nature or when it R:AT:< =:> R!?@T<. n the other hand, remedial or procedural laws, i.e., those statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which do not create new or ta#e away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or conrmation 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 epress provision to that e/ect. Accordingly, Accordingly, rules of procedure can apply to cases pending at the time of their enactment. !n fact, statutes regulating the
procedure of the courts will be applied on actions undetermined at the time of their e/ectivity. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that etent.
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 led in RT !loilo a complaint for breach of contract, specic performance, and damages for alleged violation of dealership agreement During the pendency of this case, the respondent led a separate case with RT "a#ati for collection of a sum of money amounting to about Php$%%,%%% for beer it delivered to petitioner Petitioner moved to dismiss the "a#ati case because it split the cause of action and violated the rule for multiplicity of suits. This motion was denied by "a#ati Budge Rosario Petitioner moved for Rosario to inhibit himself, which he did. The "a#ati case was then raCed to Budge Parentala Petitioner led a motion to consolidate the cases, which Parentala granted on &eb '(, '))* Respondent led a motion for reconsideration, but this was denied on "ay '), '))*. Respondent received copy of this decision on "ay +(, '))*. Respondent then led a petition for certiorari under Rule with the A on August 'E+', '))* 6the facts and the ratio were inconsistent as to the date7, which was *E)% days after the receipt. The A ruled for the respondent, saying that there was no common issue or fact in the two cases. @ence this petition for certiorari under Rule $, where petitioner avers that the RT orders had already become nal and eecutory and the A should have dismissed respondent2s petition outright. • • • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PROCEDURE SUMMARY Action (Petition for review, appeal of CA decision etc.) Petitioner5 complaint for breach of contract etc Respondent5 complaint for money collection Petitioner5 motion to dismiss "a#ati case Petitioner5 motion for Rosario to inhibit himself Petitioner5 motion to consolidate two cases Respondent5 motion for reconsideration Respondent5 Rule petition ISSUE
Decision (!C" petition denied) =ot noted =ot noted RT "a#ati5 denied RT "a#ati5 granted RT "a#ati5 granted RT "a#ati5 denied A5 granted
[CIVIL PROCEDURE] | [NO VESTED RIGHTS IN PROCEDURAL RULES] 3 [eamtrinidad] 1. ON t!e orders o" RTC Ma#ati $ere a%read& 'na% and e(ec)tor& . 'ON c(")(*$+a$(" (- h ca)) /a) 0r(0r ES
YES
RATIO 1. ON t!e orders o" RTC Ma#ati $ere a%read& 'na% and e(ec)tor& YES* +eca)se res,ondent '%ed t!e R)%e - ,etition //02 da&s a"ter recei,t o" t!e assai%ed order* +e&ond t!e -23da& re4%ementar& ,eriod. a. D2r$"# h 0"+"c (- h ca), h 1447 R5$)+ R2*) (- C$5$* Pr(c+2r ((6 c (" &2* 1, 1447, /h$ch )h(r+ h 4!+a r#*9"ar 0r$(+ ( :! +a). %. G"ra* r2*; La/) )ha** ha5 "( rr(ac$5 c, 2"*)) h c("rar $) 0r(5$++. c. E $) 02r* r9+$a* (r 0r(c+2ra* $" "a2r. I +() "( a*r (r 9(+$- a" )2%)a"$5 r$#h (r)0("+", 0ar$c2*ar* /$h r)0c ( h =*$"# (- 0$$(") -(r cr$(rar$. A*h(2#h h 0r$(+ -(r =*$"# h )a9 9a ha5 %" c$5* )h(r"+, r)0("+" ha+ "( %" 2"+2* 0r?2+$c+ hr% c(")$+r$"# ha h /a) "( a a** +0r$5+ (- ha r$#h. 5. ON conso%idation o" t!e cases $as ,ro,er YES* +eca)se t!e re%ations!i, +et$een res,ondent and ,etitioner re4ardin4 t!e )n,aid +eer in t!e Ma#ati case rose "rom t!e Dea%ers!i, A4reement in t!e I%oi%o case.
DECISION Petition 4ranted CA decision re6ersed and set aside
