Hosana v. Diomano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff-appellant Abdon Hosana filed an action for forcible entry and detainer against defendants-appellees Balbino Diomano and Francisco Diomano in the justice of the peace court. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Procedural History: The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). On September 22, 1924, the CFI clerk notified the plaintiff to reproduce the original complaint within two months, or by November 22, 1924, pursuant to Act No. 2111. The Petition: While the case was pending and before the expiration of the period to reproduce the complaint, Act No. 3171 took effect on October 30, 1924. Relying on this new law, the plaintiff did not reproduce the complaint. On March 31, 1926, the CFI dismissed the case upon motion of the defendants, citing the plaintiff's failure to reproduce the complaint. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether Act No. 3171 has retroactive effect and is applicable to pending appeals. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings. The Court held that Act No. 3171, being a procedural law intended to expedite proceedings, has retroactive effect and applies to pending appeals, thus relieving the plaintiff of the obligation to reproduce the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability and retroactive effect of Act No. 3171: The Court held that Act No. 3171, which amended Section 78 of Act No. 190, is a procedural law designed to expedite and simplify proceedings in cases appealed from justice of the peace courts. Citing legal authorities and its own jurisprudence, the Court stated that statutes regulating procedure are generally construed as applicable to pending actions unless vested rights are disturbed. In this case, Act No. 3171 did not create new rights nor did it affect acquired rights; it merely simplified the procedural requirement of reproducing a complaint in the Court of First Instance. The new law considered the complaint reproduced upon the docketing of the appeal, shifting the duty to the clerk of court to notify the parties. Therefore, the provisions of Act No. 3171 were applicable to the pending appeal. On the error of the trial court in dismissing the case: Because Act No. 3171 was deemed applicable, the plaintiff was relieved of the obligation to reproduce his complaint within the period prescribed by the previous Act No. 2111. The complaint was considered reproduced by operation of law upon the docketing of the appeal in the Court of First Instance. Consequently, the dismissal of the case by the lower court on the ground of the plaintiff's failure to reproduce the complaint was erroneous. The case should have proceeded to trial on the merits.
Main Doctrine
Procedural laws, the object of which is to expedite and facilitate proceedings, shall apply to all proceedings and actions pending at the time of their enactment, provided they do not create new rights nor affect those already acquired by the parties. Act No. 3171, amending Section 78 of Act No. 190, which simplifies the procedure for appeals from justice of the peace courts by considering the complaint reproduced upon docketing, has retroactive effect and applies to pending appeals.