G.R. No.

166738 August 14, 2009

ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA, Petitioner,

vs.
EDWARD RUMBAUA, Respondent.

FACTS

The Republic maintained in its comment that: (a) A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC was applicable
although it took effect after the promulgation of Molina. The petitioner argues that the RTC decision
of April 19, 2002 should be vacated for prematurity, as it was rendered despite the absence of the
required OSG certification specified in Molina. According to the petitioner, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
which took effect only on March 15, 2003, cannot overturn the requirements of Molina that was
promulgated as early as February 13, 1997.

ISSUE:

Whether procedural rules may be given retroactive effect.

RULING:

The amendment introduced under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is procedural or remedial in

character; it does not create or remove any vested right, but only operates as a remedy in aid of or
confirmation of already existing rights. The settled rule is that procedural laws may be given
retroactive effect,

Procedural Laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general
rule against the retroactive operation of statues - they may be given retroactive effect on actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a person
who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as there are no vested rights in rules of
procedure.