Tiêu đề 2025 San Beda Red Book Remedial Law.pdf ✅

CIVIL PROCEDURE I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . Q: What is Remedial Law? ANS: Remedial law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress for their invasions (Asuela v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017, citing Bustos v. Lucero, G.R. No. L-2068, October 20, 1948). Procedural laws are adjective enforcing rights or obtainin which courts applying la of pleadings, practice the steps by which Appeals, G.R. No. 1 Q: What is the na ANS: Generally, re statutes, and they 23614, February 27, , 70). '3⁄4 Q: Is this rule absolu~ rules and forms of procedure of refer to rules of procedure by r justice. They include rules they provide or regulate d (Tan, Jr. v. Court of I I f Court are not penal . Barrios, G.R. No. L- ANS: No, statutes regula be construed as applicable to actions pending and un passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and t 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" (Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136368, January 16, 2002). See discussion in I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES, D. Procedural laws applicable to actions pending at the time of promulgation.

Q: Can procedural laws be applied to actions pending at the time of promulgation? ANS: _Yes. Stat~tes 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 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" (Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136368, January 16, 2002). Note: The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern all cases filed after their effectivity on 020, and also all pending proceedings, except to the extent that in the • application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in er which the cases were filed shall govern (Rules of C Q: Is the applicati promulgation viola ANS: No. Well-set actions pending a. retroactive in that ~ of procedural laws! vested right may a July 28, 2005). , al ·laws. tight~? X'.., .. ..PfOGeduraUaw~ d to be applicable to Jim.E;l,., offt e, and are deemed s a.. I etroactive application • •• ti. ., I rights because no ., # lie, G.R. No. 154415, \. 3⁄4~ ·~<:{} ·_;: ;:-=·· .. Q: On September 11\.201 s;,iJS. fifed;' ·,/.--~s~:~i:7 ... li lJ " tign of nullity of deeds of extrajudicial settlemei\tof ion of titles, and damages eir respective motions to se of action against them against respondents A:'8 ,, .. .. dismiss, on the ground th~ 0tbfc,6 and that they were buyers in gobd,. . .~~;,,-. ~·· in December 2018; and Bon January 3, 2019. er with affirmative defense On February 12, 2020, Judge G issued an Omnibus Order denying these motions. A, B, and C filed their respective motions for reconsideration. At the same time, C filed its Answer pleading anew its affirmative defenses that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against it, it was an innocent purchaser for value, and petitioner's claim had prescribed. Meantime, the 2019 amendment to the Rules of Court took effect on May 1, 2020. Thereafter, the trial court, still through Judge G, issued an Order dated May 22, 2020, dismissing the complaint as against A, B, and Con ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against them. Judge G stated that she applied Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments to the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, thus: For comment and resolution of the Court are the Affirmative Defenses filed by: "as per this new provision, the Court shall motu proprio resolve the affirmative defense if claim allegedly states no cause of action, among others." X now seeks affirmative relief from the Court against the assailed Order dated May 22, 2020. He faults Judge G for applying the 2019 Rules on Civil Procedure to the case, and based thereon, motu proprio acted on the affirmative defenses of respondent companies despite the clear injustice it caused to him. Did the trial