Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Prospectivity of Remedial Law

    Uploaded by

    dextaleon
    1) The document discusses whether a 2005 Supreme Court case establishing a "fresh period rule" for appeals can be applied retroactively to cases where the appeal period had already lapsed. 2) It notes that procedural laws can generally be applied retroactively to pending cases, as there are no vested rights in procedural rules. 3) The fresh period rule is considered procedural in nature, and so should be applied retroactively to pending cases like the one discussed here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Prospectivity of Remedial Law

    Uploaded by

    dextaleon
    123 views1 page
    1) The document discusses whether a 2005 Supreme Court case establishing a "fresh period rule" for appeals can be applied retroactively to cases where the appeal period had already lapsed. 2) It notes that procedural laws can generally be applied retroactively to pending cases, as there are no vested rights in procedural rules. 3) The fresh period rule is considered procedural in nature, and so should be applied retroactively to pending cases like the one discussed here.

    Original Description:

    G.R. No. 162518 RODRIGO SUMIRAN v SPOUSES GENEROSO DAMASO and EVA DAMASO, August 19, 2009

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The document discusses whether a 2005 Supreme Court case establishing a "fresh period rule" for appeals can be applied retroactively to cases where the appeal period had already lapsed. 2) It notes that procedural laws can generally be applied retroactively to pending cases, as there are no vested rights in procedural rules. 3) The fresh period rule is considered procedural in nature, and so should be applied retroactively to pending cases like the one discussed here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views1 page

    Prospectivity of Remedial Law

    Uploaded by

    dextaleon
    1) The document discusses whether a 2005 Supreme Court case establishing a "fresh period rule" for appeals can be applied retroactively to cases where the appeal period had already lapsed. 2) It notes that procedural laws can generally be applied retroactively to pending cases, as there are no vested rights in procedural rules. 3) The fresh period rule is considered procedural in nature, and so should be applied retroactively to pending cases like the one discussed here.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Prospectivity of Remedial Law

    The determinative issue is whether the fresh period rule


    announced in Neypes could retroactively apply in cases where the
    period for appeal had lapsed prior to 14 September 2005 when Neypes
    was promulgated. That question may be answered with the guidance of
    the general rule that procedural laws may be given retroactive
    effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
    passage, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure.
    Amendments to procedural rules are procedural or remedial in
    character as they do not create new or remove vested rights,
    but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation
    of rights already existing.
    The fresh period rule is a procedural law as it prescribes a
    fresh period of 15 days within which an appeal may be made in the
    event that the motion for reconsideration is denied by the lower
    court. Following the rule on retroactivity of procedural laws, the
    fresh period rule should be applied to pending actions, such as the
    present case.
    Since this case was already pending in this Court at the time of
    promulgation of Neypes, then, ineluctably, the Court must also apply the
    foregoing rulings to the present case. Petitioner is entitled to a fresh period
    of 15 days counted from May 19, 2003, the date of petitioners receipt of
    the Order denying his motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision
    within which to file his notice of appeal. Therefore, when he filed said notice
    on May 29, 2003, or only ten (10) days after receipt of the Order denying his
    motion for reconsideration, his period to appeal had not yet lapsed. (G.R.
    No. 162518 RODRIGO SUMIRAN v SPOUSES GENEROSO DAMASO and
    EVA DAMASO, August 19, 2009)

    You might also like