Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, Inc. G.R. No. 138137; March 8, !!1 Nature: PETITION for for review on certiorari of a decision decision of the Court of Appeals Ponente: Panganiban
"acts# Respondent Asia Asia Brewer! Inc! is engaged in the "anufacture! distribution and sale of beer# while Petitioner Perla $ulueta is a dealer and an operator of an outlet selling the for"er %s beer products& A 'ealership Agree"ent Agree"ent governed their contractual relations& On (arch )*! +,,-! petitioner +,,-! petitioner filed a co"plaint co"plaint before before the Regional Trial Trial Court .RTC/ .RTC/ of Iloilo 0Iloilo case1! against respondent for Breach of Contract! 2pecific Perfor"ance and 'a"ages& On 3ul 4! +,,5! during the pendenc of the Iloilo case! respondent filed a co"plaint with the (a6ati RTC 0(a6ati case1 against the petitioner for the failure of the latter to pa the value of beer products that was delivered delivered to her& On 3anuar )! +,,4! petitioner "oved for the consolidation of the (a6ati case with the Iloilo case which the (a6ati RTC granted on 7ebruar +)! +,,4& Respondent filed for a (otion of Reconsideration but was denied on (a +,! +,! +,,4& On August +8! +,,4! respondent filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari assailing the consolidation of the two cases decided b the (a6ati RTC& The CA granted respondent%s petition and has set set aside the decision of the the RTC .re: .re: consolidation/& consolidation/& The CA ruled that there is no co""on issue of law or fact between the two cases so the cannot be consolidated& The issue in the (a6ati case is private respondent%s co"plaint co"plaint for the unpaid beer products b the petitioner# while in the Iloilo case is whether or notrespondent breached its dealership contract with petitioner& petitioner& According to the CA! the petitioner%s obligation to pa for the beer deliveries can e9ist regardless of an breach in the contract& The petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the decision of the C A&
Issues# +& hether the decision of of the RTC RTC in granting the the consolidation consolidation of the two case was alread alread final and e9ecutor when respondent filed its petition at the CA such that the CA could have no longer ac;uire
$el%&Rulin'# +&=es! it was final and e9ecutor& Respondent%s Petition for Certiorari was filed with the CA beond the regle"entar >*?da period prescribed in the 1((7 Revise% Rules o) *ivil +roce%ure! which too6 effect on uly 1, 1((7& The records show that the respondent received on (a -)! +,,4 the Order dening its (otion for Reconsideration& According to the petitioner! the respondent has onl >* das or until uly , 1((7! within which to file the Petition for Certiorari& @owever! the respondent filed the petition on August +8! +,,4& On the other hand! respondent contended that the filed on ti"e because the regle"entar period was ,* das under the 1((7 Rules o) *ivil +roce%ure& @ence! the last da "ust be still on August -+! +,,4& Respondent said that the Revised Rules cannot appl since laws have no retroactive effect& nder the Civil Code! laws shall have no retroactive effect! unless the contrar is provided& There are e9ceptions to the general rule! such as when the statute is Re"edial or Procedural in nature& Thus! procedural laws "a operate retroactivel as to pending proceedings even without provision to that effect& Accordingl! rules of procedure can appl to cases pending at the ti"e of their enact"ent& 2tatute regulating the procedure of the courts will be applied on actions undeter"ined at the ti"e of their effectivit& Thus! the CA should have dis"issed the respondent%s petition outright& Note: Re"edial or Procedural laws are those statutes relating to re"edies or "odes of procedure which do not create new or ta6e awa vested rights! but onl operate in furtherance of the re"ed or confir"ation of such rights& -& The CA erred in its decision that the two cases cannot be consolidated& It is true that the petitioner%s obligation to pa for the beer products delivered can e9ist regardless of an alleged breach in the 'ealership Agree"ent which is the sub
