Acosta vs.

Plan

G.R. No. 44466 January 30, 1989 Grino-Aquino, J.

Retroactive effect By: Erelyn

Petitioners: Respondents:
Magdalena V. Acosta, Juliana V. Acosta and Hon. Judge Andres B. Plan, et al.
Rosita V. Acosta

Facts of the case: The petitioner filed an accion publiciana against private respondent Berna
rdino Magday at the RTC, Isabela however it was dismissed. Believing that as a pauper ligita
nts they did not have to submit records of the case to the Court of Appeals as provided in S
ec 16, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Respondent judge dismissed the appeal for failure to fil
e a record on appeal. Under the Rules of Court in forced, a record on appeal was indeed re
quired to be filed by the pauper petitioner although it is not required to have been printed.
During the pending of the case, B.P. Blg. 129 has taken into effect before it was decided, a r
ecord is no longer required for the perfection of an appeal.
Issue: Whether or not B.P. Blg. 129 should be given retroactive effect.

Rationale/Legal Basis/Analysis:

Yes, B.P. Blg. 129 should be given retroactive effect. Under B.P. 129 which was overtaken bef
ore the the case was decided, a record on appeal is no longer required for the perfection of
an appeal.

Under the case of Alday vs. Calimon it was ruled that being procedural in nature, those prov
isions appears in Sec. 18 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the government may
be applied retroactively for the benefit of petitioners, as appellants.

Disposition:
The trial court was ordered to forward the entire records to the Court of Appeals for the det
ermination and disposition of the petitioner's appeal on merits.