Dacudao vs. DOJ

[Civil Law: Effectivity of laws; general rule: no retroactive effect; exception: when law is procedural in nature]

Spouses Augusto G. Dacudao and Ofelia R. Dacudao, Petitioners, vs. Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales of the Department of Justice, Respondent

G.R. No. 188056; January 8, 2013

Facts:  The petitioners filed a case of syndicated estafa against Celso Delos Angeles and his associates after the petitioners were defrauded in a business venture. Thereafter, the DOJ Secretary issued Department Order 182 which directs all prosecutors in the country to forward all cases already filed against Celso Delos Angeles, Jr. and his associates to the secretariat of DOJ in Manila for appropriate action. However, in a separate order which is Memorandum dated March 2009, it was said that cases already filed against Celso Delos Angeles et. al of the Legacy Group of Companies in Cagayan De Oro City need not be sent anymore to the Secretariat of DOJ in Manila. Because of such DOJ orders, the complaint of petitioners was forwarded to the secretariat of the Special Panel of the DOJ in Manila. Aggrieved, Spouses Dacudao filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing to the respondent Secretary of justice grave abuse of discretion in issuing the department Order and the Memorandum, which according to the violated their right to due process, right to equal protection of the law and right to speedy disposition of the cases. The petitioners opined that orders were unconstitutional or exempting from coverage cases already filed and pending at the Prosecutor’s Office of Cagayan De Oro City. They contended that the assailed issuances should cover only future cases against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al, not those already being investigated. They maintained that DO 182 was issued in violation of the prohibition against passing laws with retroactive effect.

Issue:     Whether or not the assailed issuances can be given retroactive effect.

Ruling:     Yes. As a general rule, laws shall have no retroactive effect. However, exceptions exist, and one such exception concerns a law that is procedural in nature. The reason is that a remedial statute or a statute relating to remedies or modes of procedure does not create new rights or take away vested rights but operates only in furtherance of the remedy or the confirmation already existing rights. The retroactive application is not violative of any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, for, no vested right generally attaches to or arises from procedural law.