PROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF THE RULES OF COURTBERMEJO V. BARRIOSThe Rules of Court are not penal statutes, and they cannot be given retroactive effect.

APPLICABILITY TO PENDING ACTIONS; RETROACTIVITYIN THE MATTER TO DECLARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT HON. SIMEON DATUMANONGWell-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom.

PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC V. GO KOIn view of its purpose, the Resolution further amending Section 4, Rule 65 can only be described as curative in nature, and the principles governing curative statutes are applicable.Curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legal proceedings which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain legal requirements. They are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities and curb certain evils. They are intended to enable persons to carry into effect that which they have designed or intended, but has failed of expected legal consequence by reason of some statutory disability or irregularity in their own action. They make valid that which, before the enactment of the statute was invalid. Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with. Curative statutes, therefore, by their very essence, are retroactive.

GO VS. SUNBANUN"[P]rocedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being novested rights in the rules of procedure."Neypes, which we rendered in September 2005, has been applied retroactively to a numberof cases wherein the original period to appeal had already lapsed subsequent to the denial of the motion for reconsideration.Aurora's situation is no exception, and thus she is entitled to benefit from the amendment of the procedural rules.

FIRST AQUA SUGAR TRADERS VS BPIIn the light of this decision, a party litigant may now file his notice of appeal either within fifteen days from receipt of the original decision or within fifteen days from the receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. Being procedural in nature, Neypes is deemed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its effectivity and is thus retroactive in that sense and to that extent.

IN WHAT CASES RULES OF COURT IS NOT APPLICABLEATIENZA VS BOARD OF MEDICINEIt is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such as the BOM.

BANTOLINO VS COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHIL., INC.The argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants were not presented for cross examination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC, where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only.

PANUNCILLO VS CAP, PHILS. INC.We reiterate the rule that technicalities have no room in labor cases where the Rules of Court are applied only in a suppletory manner and only to effectuate the objectives of the Labor Code and not to defeat them.

ONG CHIA VS REPUBLICIn this case, the Supreme Court held that the rule on formal offer of evidence (Rule 132, 34) now being invoked by petitioner is clearly not applicable to the present case involving a petition for naturalization.

CONDITION PRECEDENTKATARANGUNGANG PAMBARANGAYLUMBUAN VS RONQUILLOThe confrontation before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the case in court.

PAYMENT OF FILING FEESHEIRS OF BERTULDO HINOG VS MELICOR, reiterating SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. VS ASUNCIONWhile the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply.

RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTIONPURPOSESF.A.T. KEY COMPUTER SYSTEM VS ONLINE NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL, INC.On this preliminary procedural issue, we rule that the non-attachment of the relevant portions of the TSN does not render the petition of FAT KEE fatally defective.Rule 45, Section 4 of the Rules of Court indeed requires the attachment to the petition for review on certiorari "such material portions of the record as would support the petition."59 However, such a requirement was not meant to be an ironclad rule such that the failure to follow the same would merit the outright dismissal of the petition.Given that the TSN of the proceedings before the RTC forms part of the records of the instant case, the failure of FAT KEE to attach the relevant portions of the TSN was already cured by the subsequent elevation of the case records to this Court. This pronouncement is likewise in keeping with the doctrine that procedural rules should be liberally construed in order to promote their objective and assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding.

CITY OF DUMAGUETE VS PHIL PORTS AUTHORITYProcedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter.

ALCANTARA VS PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL BANKLapses in the literal observation of a procedural rule will be overlooked when they do not involve public policy, when they arose from an honest mistake or unforeseen accident, and when they have not prejudiced the adverse party or deprived the court of its authority.

EXTENT AND SCOPE OF THE RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTIONS; EXCEPTIONCOMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS MIGRANT PAGBILAO CORPORATIONIt is already well-settled in this jurisdiction that a party may not change his theory of the case on appeal. The BIR Commissioner pleads with this Court not to apply the foregoing rule to the instant case, for a rule on technicality should not defeat substantive justice. The BIR Commissioner apparently forgets that there are specific reasons why technical or procedural rules are imposed upon the courts, and that compliance with these rules, should still be the general course of action. The courts have the power to relax or suspend technical or procedural rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it. What constitutes good and sufficient cause that would merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon the courts.

ABRENICA VS LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA, TUNGOL AND TIBAYANThis does not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.

GENERAL RULE ON LIBERAL CONSTRUCTIONS; EXCEPTIONPILAPIL VS HEIRS OF BRIONESCompliance with the procedural rules is the general rule, and abandonment thereof should only be done in the most exceptional circumstances. The presumptions relied upon by this Court in the instant case are disputable presumptions, which are satisfactory, unless contradicted or overcome by evidence.

BARANGAY DASMARINAS VS CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL