Bermejo vs Barrios

(1970)
Petitioner
Atty. Pedro
Bermejo- accused
in case of
falsification after
he and certain
Julia Doe
allegedly made it
appear in the
amended petition
for Habeas Corpus
that the same
was signed by
Jovita Carmorin.

GR L-23615
Defendant
Judge Barriosordered for the
arrest of accused
Bermejo.
Fiscal Abelaconducted PI

Dispute
Atty, Bermejo received
subpoena on March 11, 1963
requiring him to appear for
investigation on March 14,
1963.
Atty Bermejo requested that
investigation be postponed
to March 19, 1963. This is
because he had to attend
another case to be heard on
March 14, 1963 (scheduled
PI)
Fiscal acceded to his request
however he failed to notify
Atty Bermejo.

Defenses
Atty. Bermejo
contended that
his right to due
process was
violated due to
failure of Fiscal to
notify him about
the investigation.

Issue
Whether or not
new provisions of
new ROC is
applicable to the
case?

SC ruling
p. 776 SCRA
Bermejos right to due process could not
have been violated for they are not entitled
as of rights to preliminary investigation
because Sec14, Rule 112 of new ROC has
no application in their cases.
That it appears that the NROC took effect
on January 1, 1964 while the PI conducted
by fiscal was conducted in 1963. The ROC
are not penal statutes and they cannot be
given retroactive effect.

He further argued
that Sec 14, Rule
112 of new ROC is
applicable to his
case.

On March 19, 1963, Bermejo

was not present when
investigation was conducted.
After finding that there was
prima facie case, Fiscal filed
the information against
Bermejo.
Bustos vs Lucero GR L-2068 (1948)
Petitioner
Defendant
Dominador
Judge Antonio
Bustos- was an
Lucero- judge of

Dispute
Judge Lucero denied Bustos
motion praying that the

Defenses
Bustos motion
having been

Issue
whether or not
S11, r108 deals

SC ruling
Section 11 rule 108 is an adjective law and

accused in a
criminal case.

first instance of
Pampanga

record of the case be

remanded to the justice of
the peace of court of
Masantol, court of origin, in
order that the petitioner
might cross-examine the
complainant and her
witnesses in connection with
testimony. Because of this
testimony, warrant of arrest
was issued to Bustos.
Basis denial: Sec 11, Rule
108

denied, he filed
special civil action
for mandamus.
He contended
that Section 11 of
Rule 108 deprives
him of the right to
be confronted
with and crossexamine the
witnesses for the
prosecution,
contrary to the
provision of sec
13, Article VIII, of
the Constitution.
Section 11, Rule
108- right of
defendants after
arrest

Pinga vs Heirs of

with substantive
matters and
impairs
substantive
rights?

not substantive law or substantive right.

Substantive law creates substantive rights
and the two terms in this respect may be
said to synonymous. Substantive rights is a
term which includes those right which one
enjoys under the legal system prior to the
disturbance of normal relations. Substantive
law is that part of the law which creates,
defines and regulates rights, or which
regulates the rights and duties which give
rise to a cause of action; that part of the law
which courts are established to administer;
as opposed to adjective or remedial law,
which prescribes the method of enforcing
rights or obtains redress for their invasion.
Section 11 of Rule 108 denies to the
defendant the right to cross-examine
witnesses in a preliminary investigation, his
right to present his witnesses remains
unaffected, and his constitutional right to be
informed of the charges against him both
at such investigation and at the trial is
unchanged. The latter stage of the
proceedings, the only stage where guaranty
of due process comes into play, he still
enjoys to the full extent the right to be
confronted by and to
cross-examine the witnesses against him.

Santiago
Petitioner
Edgardo Pingawas named as
one of two
defendants in a
complaint for
injunction.

Defendant
The heirs of
German
Santiagoclaimed that
Pinga and
Saavedra had
been unlawfully
entering their
coco lands where
they gathered
woods, bamboos
and fruits of the
coconut trees.

Dispute
Pinga filed answer with
counterclaim against the
heirs of German. Pinga
asserted that the Heirs of
German derived their interest
and possession in the
properties was due to his
father, Edmundo Pinga.
The complaint filed by heirs
of German was dismissed by
RTC on the ground that they
failed to prosecute the case
for an unreasonable length of
time, in fact not having
presented their evidence yet.
At the same time, RTC
allowed Pinga to present
their evidence ex parte.
Heirs of German filed a
motion opting not to
reinstate the case but
praying instead that the
entire action be dismissed
and Pinga be disallowed from
presenting evidence ex
parte. RTC granted the same,
dismissing the counterclaim.

Defenses
Heirs of German ,
cited various
jurisprudence,
argued that
compulsory
counterclaims
cannot be
adjudicated
independently of
plaintiffs cause of
action and the
dismissal of the
complaint carries
with it the
dismissal of the
compulsory
counterclaims.
Pinga argues
otherwise, he
based his
argument under
Sec 3, Rule 17 of
the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure,
stating that the
dismissal of the
complaint due to
the fault of
plaintiff does not

Issue
whether or not
amendment of
the rules
abandoned
previous jural
doctrines that
were
inconsistent with
the new rules?

SC ruling
The constitutional faculty of the Court to
promulgate rules of practice and procedure
necessarily carries the power to overturn
judicial precedents on points of remedial
law through the amendment of the ROC.
One of the notable changes introduced in
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the
explicit proviso that if a complaint is
dismissed due to the fault of the plaintiff,
such dismissal is without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in separate
action. The innovation was instituted in
spite of previous jurisprudence holding that
the fact of the dismissal of the complaint
was sufficient to justify the dismissal as well
of compulsory counterclaim.

necessarily carry
with it the
dismissal of the
counterclaim,
compulsory or
otherwise.