Municipal Government of Coron v. Cariño (Case Digest) G.R. No. L-65894

Municipal Government of Coron v. Cariño
G.R. No. L-65894
September 24, 1987

THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF CORON, PALAWAN, duly represented by MAYOR RICARDO F. LIM, petitioner,
vs.
JO SE CARINO, VICTORIANO DACULLA, BEN GUMASING, LUCENA CRUZ, HILARIA YALON, PEPITO YAMBAO, RIC GACUTAN, ANDRES DACULLA, FELICISIMA URSAIS, PASTOR JOSOL, TEDDY ACTANG CANDIDA MANALO, LETICIA RAMAL, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES PORFIRIO V. SISON, ABDULWAHID A. BIDIN MARCELINO R. VELOSO and DESIDERIO P. JURADO, respondents.

Facts:
Sometime in 1976, an action was filed by the municipality of Coron, Palawan, seeking the authority to demolish the structures built by private respondents alongside the rock causeway of the petitioner’s wharf. The hearings were scheduled, but the respondents continued postponing them. The court then set the final dates of the hearing, allowing no further postponements, on March 20, 21, and 22, 1979. The respondents still did not appear, and their absence was taken as a waiver of their rights to cross-examine the witnesses and to present evidence. The court then rendered a decision to allow the municipality to demolish the defendants’ structures.

The defendants appealed but failed to submit the required 40 copies of their record on appeal even after the appellate court granted an extension of 60 days. Because of this, the appellate court resolved to dismiss the respondents’ appeal. On September 27, 1982, the resolution dismissing the appeal has become final and executory.

On January 11, 1983, Sections 18 of the Interim Rules of Court was promulgated, implementing the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 29, providing that the filing of a record on appeal shall be dispensed with. This is Thus, on April 12, 1983, the respondents asked the appellate court to recall the records of the case from the court of origin.

Issue:
Can the law have retroactive effect on the case despite the court’s decision being final and executory?

Ruling:
No. To revive or recall a case whose decision has become final and executory would be an injustice to those whose favor the case has been decided. As provided in Alday v. Camilon, “Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.” When the judgment becomes final, the favored party is entitled as a matter of right to the execution of the judgment.