Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 145391 August 26, 2002
AVELINO CASUPANAN !" RO#ERTO CAPITULO, petitioners,
vs.
MARIO LLAVORE LARO$A, respondent.
CARPIO, J.%
The Case
This is a petition for revie on certiorari to set aside the Resolution
!
dated Dece"ber
#$, !%%% dis"issin& the petition for certiorari and the Resolution
#
dated 'u&ust #(,
#))) den*in& the "otion for reconsideration, both issued b* the Re&ional Trial +ourt
of +apas, Tarlac, ,ranch --, in Special +ivil 'ction No. !./+ 0%%1.
The Facts
To vehicles, one driven b* respondent Mario 2lavore 2aro*a 032aro*a3 for brevit*1
and the other oned b* petitioner Roberto +apitulo 03+apitulo3 for brevit*1 and driven
b* petitioner 'velino +asupanan 03+asupanan3 for brevit*1, fi&ured in an accident. 's
a result, to cases ere filed ith the Municipal +ircuit Trial +ourt 03M+T+3 for
brevit*1 of +apas, Tarlac. 2aro*a filed a cri"inal case a&ainst +asupanan for rec4less
i"prudence resultin& in da"a&e to propert*, doc4eted as +ri"inal +ase No. ))#/%%.
On the other hand, +asupanan and +apitulo filed a civil case a&ainst 2aro*a for
5uasi/delict, doc4eted as +ivil +ase No. #)$%.
6hen the civil case as filed, the cri"inal case as then at its preli"inar*
investi&ation sta&e. 2aro*a, defendant in the civil case, filed a "otion to dis"iss the
civil case on the &round of foru"/shoppin& considerin& the pendenc* of the cri"inal
case. The M+T+ &ranted the "otion in the Order of March #-, !%%% and dis"issed
the civil case.
On Motion for Reconsideration, +asupanan and +apitulo insisted that the civil case
is a separate civil action hich can proceed independentl* of the cri"inal case. The
M+T+ denied the "otion for reconsideration in the Order of Ma* ., !%%%.
+asupanan and +apitulo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule -7 before the
Re&ional Trial +ourt 03+apas RT+3 for brevit*1 of +apas, Tarlac, ,ranch --,
8
assailin&
the M+T+9s Order of dis"issal.
The Trial Courts Ruling
The +apas RT+ rendered :ud&"ent on Dece"ber #$, !%%% dis"issin& the petition
for certiorari for lac4 of "erit. The +apas RT+ ruled that the order of dis"issal issued
b* the M+T+ is a final order hich disposes of the case and therefore the proper
re"ed* should have been an appeal. The +apas RT+ further held that a special civil
action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. ;inall*, the +apas RT+
declared that even on the pre"ise that the M+T+ erred in dis"issin& the civil case,
such error is a pure error of :ud&"ent and not an abuse of discretion.
+asupanan and +apitulo filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the +apas RT+
denied the sa"e in the Resolution of 'u&ust #(, #))).
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
The petition pre"ises the le&al issue in this ise<
3In a certain vehicular accident involvin& to parties, each one of the" "a*
thin4 and believe that the accident as caused b* the fault of the other. = = =
>T?he first part*, believin& hi"self to be the a&&rieved part*, opted to file a
cri"inal case for rec4less i"prudence a&ainst the second part*. On the
other hand, the second part*, to&ether ith his operator, believin&
the"selves to be the real a&&rieved parties, opted in turn to file a civil case
for 5uasi/delict a&ainst the first part* ho is the ver* private co"plainant in
the cri"inal case.3
(
Thus, the issue raised is hether an accused in a pendin& cri"inal case for rec4less
i"prudence can validl* file, si"ultaneousl* and independentl*, a separate civil action
for 5uasi/delict a&ainst the private co"plainant in the cri"inal case.
The Courts Ruling
+asupanan and +apitulo assert that +ivil +ase No. #)$%, hich the M+T+
dis"issed on the &round of foru"/shoppin&, constitutes a counterclai" in the
cri"inal case. +asupanan and +apitulo ar&ue that if the accused in a cri"inal case
has a counterclai" a&ainst the private co"plainant, he "a* file the counterclai" in a
separate civil action at the proper ti"e. The* contend that an action on 5uasi/delict is
different fro" an action resultin& fro" the cri"e of rec4less i"prudence, and an
accused in a cri"inal case can be an a&&rieved part* in a civil case arisin& fro" the
sa"e incident. The* "aintain that under 'rticles 8! and #!.- of the +ivil +ode, the
civil case can proceed independentl* of the cri"inal action. ;inall*, the* point out that
+asupanan as not the onl* one ho filed the independent civil action based on
1
5uasi/delict but also +apitulo, the oner/operator of the vehicle, ho as not a part*
in the cri"inal case.
In his +o""ent, 2aro*a clai"s that the petition is fatall* defective as it does not state
the real antecedents. 2aro*a further alle&es that +asupanan and +apitulo forfeited
their ri&ht to 5uestion the order of dis"issal hen the* failed to avail of the proper
re"ed* of appeal. 2aro*a ar&ues that there is no 5uestion of la to be resolved as
the order of dis"issal is alread* final and a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for
a lapsed appeal.
In their Repl*, +asupanan and +apitulo contend that the petition raises the le&al
5uestion of hether there is foru"/shoppin& since the* filed onl* one action / the
independent civil action for quasi-delict a&ainst 2aro*a.
Ntu&' o( t)' O&"'& o( *+s,+ss-
The M+T+ dis"issed the civil action for quasi-delict on the &round of foru"/
shoppin& under Supre"e +ourt 'd"inistrative +ircular No. )(/%(. The M+T+ did not
state in its order of dis"issal
7
that the dis"issal as with prejudice. @nder the
'd"inistrative +ircular, the order of dis"issal is ithout pre:udice to refilin& the
co"plaint, unless the order of dis"issal e=pressl* states it is ith pre:udice.
-
'bsent
a declaration that the dis"issal is ith pre:udice, the sa"e is dee"ed ithout
pre:udice. Thus, the M+T+9s dis"issal, bein& silent on the "atter, is a dis"issal
without prejudice.
Section ! of Rule (!
.
provides that an order dis"issin& an action ithout pre:udice is
not appealable. The re"ed* of the a&&rieved part* is to file a special civil action
under Rule -7. Section ! of Rule (! e=pressl* states that 3here the :ud&"ent or
final order is not appealable, the a&&rieved part* "a* file an appropriate special civil
action under Rule -7.3 +learl*, the +apas RT+9s order dis"issin& the petition for
certiorari, on the &round that the proper re"ed* is an ordinar* appeal, is erroneous.
.o&u,/S)o00+!g
The essence of foru"/shoppin& is the filin& of "ultiple suits involvin& the sa"e
parties for the sa"e cause of action, either si"ultaneousl* or successivel*, to secure
a favorable :ud&"ent.
$
;oru"/shoppin& is present hen in the to or "ore cases
pendin&, there is identit* of parties, ri&hts of action and reliefs sou&ht.
%
Hoever,
there is no foru"/shoppin& in the instant case because the la and the rules
e=pressl* allo the filin& of a separate civil action hich can proceed independentl*
of the cri"inal action.
2aro*a filed the cri"inal case for rec4less i"prudence resultin& in da"a&e to
propert* based on the Revised Penal +ode hile +asupanan and +apitulo filed the
civil action for da"a&es based on 'rticle #!.- of the +ivil +ode. 'lthou&h these to
actions arose fro" the sa"e act or o"ission, the* have different causes of action.
The cri"inal case is based on culpa cri"inal punishable under the Revised Penal
+ode hile the civil case is based on culpa a5uiliana actionable under 'rticles #!.-
and #!.. of the +ivil +ode. These articles on culpa a5uiliana read<
3'rt. #!.-. 6hoever b* act or o"ission causes da"a&e to another, there
bein& fault or ne&li&ence, is obli&ed to pa* for the da"a&e done. Such fault
or ne&li&ence, if there is no pre/e=istin& contractual relation beteen the
parties, is called a 5uasi/delict and is &overned b* the provisions of this
+hapter.
'rt. #!... Responsibilit* for fault or ne&li&ence under the precedin& article
is entirel* separate and distinct fro" the civil liabilit* arisin& fro" ne&li&ence
under the Penal +ode. ,ut the plaintiff cannot recover da"a&es tice for
the sa"e act or o"ission of the defendant.3
'n* a&&rieved person can invo4e these articles provided he proves, b*
preponderance of evidence, that he has suffered da"a&e because of the fault or
ne&li&ence of another. Aither the private co"plainant or the accused can file a
separate civil action under these articles. There is nothin& in the la or rules that
state onl* the private co"plainant in a cri"inal case "a* invo4e these articles.
Moreover, para&raph -, Section !, Rule !!! of the #))) Rules on +ri"inal Procedure
03#))) Rules3 for brevit*1 e=pressl* re5uires the accused to liti&ate his counterclai"
in a separate civil action, to it<
3SA+TION !. Institution of cri"inal and civil actions. B 0a1 = = =.
No counterclai", cross/clai" or third/part* co"plaint "a* be filed b* the
accused in the cri"inal case, but an* cause of action hich could have
been the sub:ect thereof "a* be liti&ated in a separate civil action.3
0A"phasis supplied1
Since the present Rules re5uire the accused in a cri"inal action to file his
counterclai" in a separate civil action, there can be no foru"/shoppin& if the
accused files such separate civil action.
.+-+!g o( s'0&t' 1+2+- 1t+o!
Section !, Rule !!! of the !%$7 Rules on +ri"inal Procedure 03!%$7 Rules3 for
brevit*1, as a"ended in !%$$, alloed the filin& of a separate civil action
independentl* of the cri"inal action provided the offended part* reserved the ri&ht to
file such civil action. @nless the offended part* reserved the civil action before the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, all civil actions arisin& fro" the
sa"e act or o"ission ere dee"ed 3i"pliedl* instituted3 in the cri"inal case. These
civil actions referred to the recover* of civil liabilit* ex-delicto, the recover* of
2
da"a&es for 5uasi/delict, and the recover* of da"a&es for violation of 'rticles 8#, 88
and 8( of the +ivil +ode on Hu"an Relations.
Thus, to file a separate and independent civil action for 5uasi/delict under the !%$7
Rules, the offended part* had to reserve in the cri"inal action the ri&ht to brin& such
action. Otherise, such civil action as dee"ed 3i"pliedl* instituted3 in the cri"inal
action. Section !, Rule !!! of the !%$7 Rules provided as follos<
3Section !. B Institution of cri"inal and civil actions. B 6hen a cri"inal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recover* of civil liabilit* is i"pliedl*
instituted ith the cri"inal action, unless the offended part* aives the
action, reserves his ri&ht to institute it separatel*, or institutes the civil action
prior to the cri"inal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised
Penal Code, and damages under Articles 3, 33, 3! and "#$ of the
Civil Code of the Phili%%ines arising from the same act or omission of
the accused&
' aiver of an* of the civil actions e=tin&uishes the others. The institution of,
or the reservation of the ri&ht to file, an* of said civil actions separatel*
aives the others.
The reservation of the ri&ht to institute the separate civil actions shall be
"ade before the prosecution starts to present its evidence and under
circu"stances affordin& the offended part* a reasonable opportunit* to
"a4e such reservation.
In no case "a* the offended part* recover da"a&es tice for the sa"e act
or o"ission of the accused.
= = =.3 0A"phasis supplied1
Section !, Rule !!! of the !%$7 Rules as a"ended on Dece"ber !, #))) and no
provides as follos<
3SA+TION !. Institution of cri"inal and civil actions. B 0a1 6hen a cri"inal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil lia'ility
arising from the offense charged shall 'e deemed instituted (ith the
criminal action unless the offended part* aives the civil action, reserves
the ri&ht to institute it separatel* or institutes the civil action prior to the
cri"inal action.
The reservation of the ri&ht to institute separatel* the civil action shall be
"ade before the prosecution starts presentin& its evidence and under
circu"stances affordin& the offended part* a reasonable opportunit* to
"a4e such reservation.
= = =
0b1 = = =
6here the civil action has been filed separatel* and trial thereof has not *et
co""enced, it "a* be consolidated ith the cri"inal action upon
application ith the court tr*in& the latter case. If the application is &ranted,
the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance ith section # of this
rule &overnin& consolidation of the civil and cri"inal actions.3 0A"phasis
supplied1
@nder Section ! of the present Rule !!!, hat is 3dee"ed instituted3 ith the cri"inal
action is onl* the action to recover civil liabilit* arisin& fro" the cri"e or ex-delicto. 'll
the other civil actions under 'rticles 8#, 88, 8( and #!.- of the +ivil +ode are no
lon&er 3dee"ed instituted,3 and "a* be filed separatel* and prosecuted
independentl* even ithout an* reservation in the cri"inal action. The failure to "a4e
a reservation in the cri"inal action is not a aiver of the ri&ht to file a separate and
independent civil action based on these articles of the +ivil +ode. The prescriptive
period on the civil actions based on these articles of the +ivil +ode continues to run
even ith the filin& of the cri"inal action. Veril*, the civil actions based on these
articles of the +ivil +ode are separate, distinct and independent of the civil action
3dee"ed instituted3 in the cri"inal action.
!)
@nder the present Rule !!!, the offended part* is still &iven the option to file a
separate civil action to recover civil liabilit* e=/delicto b* reservin& such ri&ht in the
cri"inal action before the prosecution presents its evidence. 'lso, the offended part*
is dee"ed to "a4e such reservation if he files a separate civil action before filin& the
cri"inal action. If the civil action to recover civil liabilit* ex-delicto is filed separatel*
but its trial has not *et co""enced, the civil action "a* be consolidated ith the
cri"inal action. The consolidation under this Rule does not appl* to separate civil
actions arisin& fro" the sa"e act or o"ission filed under 'rticles 8#, 88, 8( and #!.-
of the +ivil +ode.
!!
Sus0'!s+o! o( t)' S'0&t' C+2+- A1t+o!
@nder Section #, Rule !!! of the a"ended !%$7 Rules, a separate civil action, if
reserved in the cri"inal action, could not be filed until after final :ud&"ent as
rendered in the cri"inal action. If the separate civil action as filed before the
co""ence"ent of the cri"inal action, the civil action, if still pendin&, as suspended
upon the filin& of the cri"inal action until final :ud&"ent as rendered in the cri"inal
action. This rule applied onl* to the separate civil action filed to recover liabilit* ex-
delicto. The rule did not appl* to independent civil actions based on 'rticles 8#, 88,
3
8( and #!.- of the +ivil +ode, hich could proceed independentl* re&ardless of the
filin& of the cri"inal action.
The a"ended provision of Section #, Rule !!! of the #))) Rules continues this
procedure, to it<
3SA+. #. When separate civil action is suspended. B 'fter the cri"inal action
has been co""enced, the separate civil action arisin& therefro" cannot be
instituted until final :ud&"ent has been entered in the cri"inal action.
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already 'een
instituted, the latter shall 'e sus%ended in (hatever stage it may 'e
found 'efore )udgment on the merits& The sus%ension shall last until
final )udgment is rendered in the criminal action& Nevertheless, before
:ud&"ent on the "erits is rendered in the civil action, the sa"e "a*, upon
"otion of the offended part*, be consolidated ith the cri"inal action in the
court tr*in& the cri"inal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
alread* adduced in the civil action shall be dee"ed auto"aticall*
reproduced in the cri"inal action ithout pre:udice to the ri&ht of the
prosecution to cross/e=a"ine the itnesses presented b* the offended
part* in the cri"inal case and of the parties to present additional evidence.
The consolidated cri"inal and civil actions shall be tried and decided :ointl*.
Durin& the pendenc* of the cri"inal action, the runnin& of the period of
prescription of the civil action hich cannot be instituted separatel* or
hose proceedin& has been suspended shall be tolled.
= = =.3 0A"phasis supplied1
Thus, Section #, Rule !!! of the present Rules did not chan&e the rule that the
separate civil action, filed to recover da"a&es ex-delicto, is suspended upon the
filin& of the cri"inal action. Section # of the present Rule !!! also prohibits the filin&,
after co""ence"ent of the cri"inal action, of a separate civil action to recover
da"a&es ex-delicto.
3)'! 1+2+- 1t+o! ,4 0&o1''" +!"'0'!"'!t-4
The crucial 5uestion no is hether +asupanan and +apitulo, ho are not the
offended parties in the cri"inal case, can file a separate civil action a&ainst the
offended part* in the cri"inal case. Section 8, Rule !!! of the #))) Rules provides
as follos<
3SA+ 8. 6hen civil action "a* proceed independentl*. / In the cases
provided in 'rticles 8#, 88, 8( and #!.- of the +ivil +ode of the Philippines,
the independent civil action "a* be brou&ht b* the offended %arty. It shall
proceed independentl* of the cri"inal action and shall re5uire onl* a
preponderance of evidence. In no case, hoever, "a* the offended part*
recover da"a&es tice for the sa"e act or o"ission char&ed in the cri"inal
action.3 0A"phasis supplied1
Section 8 of the present Rule !!!, li4e its counterpart in the a"ended !%$7 Rules,
e=pressl* allos the 3offended part*3 to brin& an independent civil action under
'rticles 8#, 88, 8( and #!.- of the +ivil +ode. 's stated in Section 8 of the present
Rule !!!, this civil action shall proceed independentl* of the cri"inal action and shall
re5uire onl* a preponderance of evidence. In no case, hoever, "a* the 3offended
part* recover da"a&es tice for the sa"e act or o"ission char&ed in the cri"inal
action.3
There is no 5uestion that the offended part* in the cri"inal action can file an
independent civil action for 5uasi/delict a&ainst the accused. Section 8 of the present
Rule !!! e=pressl* states that the 3offended part*3 "a* brin& such an action but the
3offended part*3 "a* not recover da"a&es tice for the sa"e act or o"ission
char&ed in the cri"inal action. +learl*, Section 8 of Rule !!! refers to the offended
part* in the cri"inal action, not to the accused.
+asupanan and +apitulo, hoever, invo4e the rulin& in Ca'aero vs& Cantos
!#
here
the +ourt held that the accused therein could validl* institute a separate civil action
for quasi-delict a&ainst the private co"plainant in the cri"inal case. In C5'&o, the
accused in the cri"inal case filed his 'nser ith +ounterclai" for "alicious
prosecution. 't that ti"e the +ourt noted the 3absence of clear/cut rules &overnin&
the prosecution on i"pliedl* instituted civil actions and the !'1'ss&4
1o!s'6u'!1's !" +,0-+1t+o!s t)'&'o(.3 Thus, the +ourt ruled that the trial court
should confine itself to the cri"inal aspect of the case and disre&ard an*
counterclai" for civil liabilit*. The +ourt further ruled that the accused "a* file a
separate civil case a&ainst the offended part* 3after the cri"inal case is ter"inated
andCor in accordance ith the ne Rules hich "a* be pro"ul&ated.3 The +ourt
e=plained that a cross/clai", counterclai" or third/part* co"plaint on the civil aspect
ill onl* unnecessaril* co"plicate the proceedin&s and dela* the resolution of the
cri"inal case.
Para&raph -, Section ! of the present Rule !!! as incorporated in the #))) Rules
precisel* to address the lacuna "entioned in Ca'aero. @nder this provision, the
accused is barred fro" filin& a counterclai", cross/clai" or third/part* co"plaint in
the cri"inal case. Hoever, the sa"e provision states that 3an* cause of action
hich could have been the sub:ect 0of the counterclai", cross/clai" or third/part*
co"plaint1 "a* be liti&ated in a separate civil action.3 The present Rule !!!
"andates the accused to file his counterclai" in a separate civil actiosn hich shall
proceed independentl* of the cri"inal action, even as the civil action of the offended
part* is liti&ated in the cri"inal action.
Conclusion
4
@nder Section ! of the present Rule !!!, the independent civil action in 'rticles 8#,
88, 8( and #!.- of the +ivil +ode is not dee"ed instituted ith the cri"inal action
but "a* be filed separatel* b* the offended part* even ithout reservation. The
co""ence"ent of the cri"inal action does not suspend the prosecution of the
independent civil action under these articles of the +ivil +ode. The suspension in
Section # of the present Rule !!! refers onl* to the civil action arisin& fro" the cri"e,
if such civil action is reserved or filed before the co""ence"ent of the cri"inal
action.
Thus, the offended part* can file to separate suits for the sa"e act or o"ission. The
first a cri"inal case here the civil action to recover civil liabilit* ex-delicto is dee"ed
instituted, and the other a civil case for quasi-delict / ithout violatin& the rule on non/
foru" shoppin&. The to cases can proceed si"ultaneousl* and independentl* of
each other. The co""ence"ent or prosecution of the cri"inal action ill not
suspend the civil action for quasi-delict. The onl* li"itation is that the offended part*
cannot recover da"a&es tice for the sa"e act or o"ission of the defendant. In
"ost cases, the offended part* ill have no reason to file a second civil action since
he cannot recover da"a&es tice for the sa"e act or o"ission of the accused. In
so"e instances, the accused "a* be insolvent, necessitatin& the filin& of another
case a&ainst his e"plo*er or &uardians.
Si"ilarl*, the accused can file a civil action for quasi-delict for the sa"e act or
o"ission he is accused of in the cri"inal case. This is e=pressl* alloed in
para&raph -, Section ! of the present Rule !!! hich states that the counterclai" of
the accused 3may 'e litigated in a se%arate civil action.3 This is onl* fair for to
reasons. ;irst, the accused is prohibited fro" settin& up an* counterclai" in the civil
aspect that is dee"ed instituted in the cri"inal case. The accused is therefore forced
to liti&ate separatel* his counterclai" a&ainst the offended part*. If the accused does
not file a separate civil action for quasi-delict, the prescriptive period "a* set in since
the period continues to run until the civil action for quasi-delict is filed.
Second, the accused, ho is presu"ed innocent, has a ri&ht to invo4e 'rticle #!.. of
the +ivil +ode, in the sa"e a* that the offended part* can avail of this re"ed*
hich is independent of the cri"inal action. To disallo the accused fro" filin& a
separate civil action for quasi-delict, hile refusin& to reco&niDe his counterclai" in
the cri"inal case, is to den* hi" due process of la, access to the courts, and e5ual
protection of the la.
Thus, the civil action based on quasi-delict filed separatel* b* +asupanan and
+apitulo is proper. The order of dis"issal b* the M+T+ of +ivil +ase No. #)$% on the
&round of foru"/shoppin& is erroneous.
6e "a4e this rulin& aare of the possibilit* that the decision of the trial court in the
cri"inal case "a* var* ith the decision of the trial court in the independent civil
action. This possibilit* has ala*s been reco&niDed ever since the +ivil +ode
introduced in !%7) the concept of an independent civil action under 'rticles 8#, 88,
8( and #!.- of the +ode. ,ut the la itself, in 'rticle 8! of the +ode, e=pressl*
provides that the independent civil action 3"a* proceed independentl* of the cri"inal
proceedin&s and re&ardless of the result of the latter.3 In A*ucena vs& Potenciano,
!8

the +ourt declared<
3= = =. There can indeed be no other lo&ical conclusion than this, for to
subordinate the civil action conte"plated in the said articles to the result of
the cri"inal prosecution E hether it be conviction or ac5uittal E ould
render "eanin&less the independent character of the civil action and the
clear in:unction in 'rticle 8! that this action F"a* proceed independentl* of
the cri"inal proceedin&s and re&ardless of the result of the latter.93
More than half a centur* has passed since the +ivil +ode introduced the concept of a
civil action separate and independent fro" the cri"inal action althou&h arisin& fro"
the sa"e act or o"ission. The +ourt, hoever, has *et to encounter a case of
conflictin& and irreconcilable decisions of trial courts, one hearin& the cri"inal case
and the other the civil action for quasi-delict. The fear of conflictin& and irreconcilable
decisions "a* be "ore apparent than real. In an* event, there are sufficient
re"edies under the Rules of +ourt to deal ith such re"ote possibilities.
One final point. The Revised Rules on +ri"inal Procedure too4 effect on Dece"ber
!, #))) hile the M+T+ issued the order of dis"issal on Dece"ber #$, !%%% or
before the a"end"ent of the rules. The Revised Rules on +ri"inal Procedure "ust
be &iven retroactive effect considerin& the ell/settled rule that /
3= = = statutes re&ulatin& the procedure of the court ill be construed as
applicable to actions pendin& and undeter"ined at the ti"e of their
passa&e. Procedural las are retroactive in that sense and to that e=tent.3
!(
6HARA;ORA, the petition for revie on certiorari is hereb* GRANTE*. The
Resolutions dated Dece"ber #$, !%%% and 'u&ust #(, #))) in Special +ivil 'ction
No. !./+ 0%%1 are ANNULLE* and +ivil +ase No. #)$% is REINSTATE*.
SO ORDARAD.
5

Вам также может понравиться