Article 4.

Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided-

Laws have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided, for it is said that the law looks
to the future and has no retroactive effect unless the legislature may have given that effect to
some legal provisions, and that statutes are to be construed as having only prospective
operation, unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective
effect is expressly declared
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION. Well-settled is the principle that while the legislature has the
power to pass retroactive laws which do not impair the obligation of contracts, or affect
injuriously vested rights, it is equally true that statutes are not to be construed as intended to
have a retroactive effect so as to affect the pending proceedings, unless such intent is expressly
declared or clearly and necessarily implied from the language of the enactment.
Instances when a law may be given a retroactive effect.
1. When the law expressly provides for retrospectivity.
2. When the law is curative or remedial.
3. When the law is procedural
4. When the law is penal in character- in favor of the accused-specifically provides that
penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, although at the time of the publication of such
laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
Case illustration:
PNB vs Tejano.
Facts:
The respondent in this case, Cayetano Tejano and 8 other employees were administratively
charged by PNB management hearing committee, they were found guilty of grave abuse
misconduct in connection with a number of transaction with certain corporate entities. During
his appeal to the civil service commission, PNB had ceased to be a government-owned and
controlled corporation, and in view of its conversion into a private banking institution by virtue
of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 80.
The CSC dismissed the case because the respondent’s appeal for being filed out of time. The
respondent thereafter elevated the matter to the Court of appeals after his motion for
reconsideration was denied by CSC, on the basis that the privatization of PNB removed the case
from the jurisdiction of CSC even if the respondent’s appeal was filed on time.
During the trial in Court of appeals, Tejano, claimed that the incident subject to the case had
already transpired way back in 1992 and that the CSC had already acquired jurisdiction of the
case even before PNB’s privatization, thus CSC commited error in denying his appeal. The
Jurisdiction, once acquired generally continues until the final disposition of the case, On this
matter The Court of appeals reversed the the CSC’s and ruled that before the CSC had been
filed on time and that the said commission had not lost its jurisdiction over it, despite of the
privatization of PNB, CA remanded the case to CSC for further proceedings.
Tejano filed the instant petition for review, and contends that while indeed jurisdiction
ordinarily continues until the termination of the case, the rule does not apply where the law
provides otherwise, or were the said law intends to operate on cases pending at the times of
enactment. Respondent submits that sec tion 6 of EO No. 80 neither provides transfer of
jurisdiction of his pending appeal, nor authorizes retroactive application in a way that would
deprive the CSC of jurisdiction over cases already pending before it prior to its effectivity.
Issue; Whether or not EO No. 80 has the effect of removing frim the jurisdiction of the CSC the
appeal of respondent which was already pending before the CSC at the time the said law
privatized PNB.
Decision:
The court held that Tejano’s petition has no merit, under section 6 of EO no. 80 it cannot be
interpreted to deprive the CSC of jurisdiction over the pending disciplinary cases involving acts
commited by an employee of PNB prior to its privatization. Under section 6 of EO No. 80 is in
explicit terms and thus it cannot be interpreted that CSC commited grave abuse of discretion to
finally dispose Tejano’s pending appeal despite of PNB’s privatization, under Article 4 of the
Civil Code, which states that laws shall only have a prospective effect and must not be applied
restroactively in such a way as to apply to pending disputes and cases, The fact that section 6 of
EO no. 80 states that PNB would be removed from the coverage of the CSC must be taken to
govern acts committed by the bank;s employees after privatization, the Court also stressed out
that that EO no. 80 does not provided expressed retroactive effect, thus it in this case it cannot
be applied.