<Retroactivity of Law> <Simon v.

Chan> <SANTOS>
<G.R. 157547> <23 February 2011> <Bersamin, J. >
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER
Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. There are
no vested rights in the rules of procedure.
The retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel adversely affected. As a
general rule, no vested right may attach to, or arise from, procedural laws.
Litis Pendentia – (not necessary but nice to know) refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same
parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious.
RECIT-READY / SUMMARY

Eduard Simon issued a Landbank check (amounting to P 336,000) to Elvin Chan. The check was dishonored due to account
closed. After a formal demand, Simon filed for premilinary attachment - MeTC Pasay issued a writ of preliminary
attachment. Simon filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia which was granted by the MeTC. Chan appealed
to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the decision of the MeTC.

FACTS
Eduard Simon (Petitioner)
 Issued check to Elvin Chan (Respondent), at the time of the issue, Simon is aware that he did not have sufficient
funds in his account

More than three years later, respondent commenced a civil action for the collection of the principal amount of P336,000.
Simon filed an urgent motion to dismiss with application to charge plaintiff’s attachment bond for damages on the ground of
litis pendentia, or as a consequence of the pendency of another action between the instant parties for the same cause (civil
case and Criminal case). The MeTC in Pasay City granted the motion to dismiss. The RTC upheld the dismissal. The CA
overturned the RTC and ruled that the changes in the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure pertaining to independent civil
actions are applicable to this case. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Simon appealed.

ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED

1. Whether or not the changes in the Revised Rules on **Changes in Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Criminal Procedure may be given retroactive effect (December 2000)

HELD

DECISION: YES. The afore-quoted provisions of the Rules of Court, even if not yet in effect when Chan commenced Civil
Case No. 915-00 on August 3, 2000, are nonetheless applicable. It is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural
laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable.

OPINION (CONCURRING) OPINION (DISSENTING)