Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MRCA V CA
MRCA V CA
CA
G.R. No. 86675 12 December 1989 Griño-Aquino, J.
When do laws take effect and Sef
Retroactivity
PETITIONER RESPONDENTS
MRCA, Inc. Court of Appeals, Hon. Benjamin V.
Pelyo, Judge, Regional Trial Court,
National Capital Judicial Region, Branch
168, Pasig, M.M., Spouses Domingo
Sebastian, Jr. & Lilia Tioseco Sebastian,
and Expectacion P. Tioseco
RECIT-READY SUMMARY
A petition for certiorari (under Rule 45 of Rules of Court) was filed by the petitioner to
ask the Court to set aside the decision of the CA that was promulgated on 18 January
1989. It affirmed the decision of the RTC to dismiss the complaint for non-payment of
proper filing fees due to the failure to specify the amounts of moral damages, exemplary
damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses sought to be recovered.
The argument of the Petitioner was that the decision in Manchester (MRCA, Inc. vs.
Spoused Domingo Sebastian, Jr., et al) had not yet been published in the Official
Gazette when its complaint was filed, the ruling therein was ineffective. The ruling may
not be given retroactive effect because it imposes a new penalty for its non-observance.
However, the Court posited that the publication in the Official Gazette was not a
prerequisite for the effectivity of the ruling. The ruling becomes effective at once.
The Manchester ruling was applied retroactively in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., et al vs
Asuncion, et al. on 13 Feb 1989. The latter case was already pending before
Manchester was promulgated.
The petition for review was granted. The decision of the RTC was set aside.
FACTS
1. A decision by the Court of Appeals was promulgated on 18 January 1988,
wherein the RTC’s decision to dismiss the complaint for non-payment of the
proper filing fees as the prayer of the complaint failed to specify the amounts of
moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
2. The petitioner prays the petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
to set aside the said decision.
3. On July 15, 1988, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the case. They
invoked the case in MRCA, Inc. vs. Spouses Domingo Sebastian, Jr. et al.
4. The Petitioner argued that the ruling was ineffective since the decision in
Manchester had not yet been published in the Official Gazette when its complaint
was filed.
ISSUES RULING
1. Whether or not the Manchester NO
case is ineffective against the ruling
because it was not yet published in
the Official Gazette when the
complaint was filed.
DISPOSITIONS
The Court set aside the CA and RTC ruling. The petitioner was allowed to amend the
amounts of damages it seeks to recover from the defendants and to pay the proper
filing fees therefor as computed by the Clerk of Court.