THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF CORON, PALAWAN, duly represented by MAYOR RICARDO F.

LIM,
petitioner, vs. JOSE 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.

G.R. No. L-65894 September 24, 1987

Ponente: GUTIERREZ, JR., J.

FACTS: The private respondents lost their case at trial and on appeal due to their failure to appear at the
hearing and to submit the required record on appeal. They then asked the court to revive the case,
citing changes in the law that eliminated the requirement for printed records on appeal. The appellate
court issued a resolution seeking to revive the case. Mayor Ricardo Lim of Coron filed a case in 1976
seeking authority to demolish structures built by the private respondents alongside the rock causeway
of his wharf. The court reset the hearing for the last time for three consecutive dates, March 20, 21, and
22, 1979, warning the private respondents that no more postponements would be allowed. On March
20, 1979, despite proper notice, the private respondents and their counsel failed to appear. The court
granted the petitioner's motion to consider the private respondents' non-appearance as a waiver of
their right to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses and their right to present evidence. The court
then considered the case submitted for decision and rendered its decision in favor of the petitioner on
October 10, 1980. The respondents appealed but failed to submit the required printed copies of their
record on appeal and failed to act on the appellate court's directive to show cause why their appeal
should not be dismissed. The resolution dismissing respondents' appeal became final and executory on
September 27, 1982, and a writ of execution issued on February 1, 1983. On April 12, 1983, the private
respondents asked the appellate court to recall the records of the case and allow them to argue their
appeal, citing changes in the law that eliminated the requirement for printed records on appeal. On July
29, 1983, the appellate court issued a resolution seeking to revive the case.

ISSUE: Whether the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 29 and the Interim Rules of Court are
applicable to the appeal of the private respondents.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the Interim Rules of Court promulgated on January 11, 1983, to
implement the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 29 cannot apply to the case at bar. The extent of the
retroactive application of section 18 of the Interim Rules of Court are retrospective in the sense and to
the extent that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their passage (Alday vs. Camilon). As a general rule, the policy
towards an invocation of the right to appeal has been one of liberality. The right to appeal is merely a
statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner provided for by law.