Dear PAO,

Can a recently passed procedural rule be applied to a previous/ committed transaction or act?

Karlo

Dear Karlo,

The answer to your query depends upon the express nomenclature of a specific rule, or by necessary implication after due consideration upon the prevailing circumstances of each case. To elucidate this point, allow us to lead your attention to the case of Tan v. Hon. Court of Appeals (GR 136368, Jan. 16, 2002) penned by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, where the Supreme Court, citing author Agpalo, held: “9.17. Procedural laws. “Procedural laws are adjective laws which prescribe rules and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion; they refer to rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice.

They include rules of pleadings, practice and evidence. As applied to criminal law, they provide or regulate the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished.

“The general rule that statutes are prospective and not retroactive does not ordinarily apply to procedural laws.

It has been held that “a retroactive law, in a legal sense, is one which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under laws, or creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect of transactions or considerations already past. Hence, remedial statutes or 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 rights already existing, do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statutes.” The general rule against giving statutes retroactive operation whose effect is to impair the obligations of contract or to disturb vested rights does not prevent the application of statutes to proceedings pending at the time of their enactment where they neither create new nor take away vested rights. A new statute which deals with procedure only is presumptively applicable to all actions — those which have accrued or are pending.

“Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and

to that extent. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants’ rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. Nor is the retroactive application of procedural statutes constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws. It has been held that “a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure.” x x x “9.18. Exceptions to the rule. “The rule that procedural laws are applicable to pending actions or proceedings admits certain exceptions. The rule does not apply where the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides that pending actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to pending proceedings would impair vested rights. Under appropriate circumstances, courts may deny the retroactive application of procedural laws in the event that to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice. Nor may procedural laws be applied retroactively to pending actions if to do so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the independence of the courts.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

Applying the foregoing, the general rule dictates that a rule of procedure may be applied retroactively. As exceptions to the general rule, a procedural rule may not be applied retroactively in the following instances:

1. When the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides that pending actions are excepted from its operation;

2. Where to apply it to pending proceedings would impair vested rights;

3. Where to do so would work injustice, or when the same is not feasible; and

4. If to do so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the independence of the courts.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.