716. PNB v.

Asuncion- 80 SCRA 321

FACTS:

 On January 16 1963, Philippine National Bank granted various credit accommodations

and advances to Fabar Incorporated covering the importation of machinery and
equipment. Said credit accommodations reached an outstanding balance of P8,
449,169.98 on May 13, 1977.
 For failure of private respondents to pay their obligations, petitioner instituted a case
for collection Which was filed before the sala of the Honorable Elias B. Asuncion.
 On May 19, 1975, before the case could be decided, Manuel H. Barredo died.
 Upon being notified of the death of the private respondent, the respondent Court
issued an Order of dismissal dated November 29, 1976 citing Rule 86, Section 6 of the
Rules of the Court stating: “In view of the death of defendant Manuel Barredo, the
Court hereby dismisses this case since the present suit is for a money claim which does
not survive the death of said defendant.”
 On December 4, 1976, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court order
contending that the dismissal, however, the court denied the motion.
 The Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court erred in dismissing the case against all
the defendants, instead of dismissing the case only as against the deceased defendant
and thereafter proceeding with the hearing as against the other defendants, private
respondents herein.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a substantive law can be amended by a procedural rule.

RULING:

No, A substantive law cannot be amended by a procedural law.—If Section 6, Rule 86 of

the Revised Rules of Court were applied literally, Article 1216 of the New Civil Code would, in
effect, be repealed since under the Rules of Court, petitioner has no choice but to proceed
against the estate of the deceased only. Obviously, this provision diminishes the Bank’s right
under the New Civil Code to proceed against any one, some or all of the solidary debtors. Such
a construction is not sanctioned by the principle, which is too well settled to require citation,
that a substantive law cannot be amended by a procedural rule. Otherwise stated, Section 6,
Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot be made to prevail over Article 1216 of the New
Civil Code, the former being merely procedural, while the latter, substantive.

IAN VILLARES