"The trial court gravely erred when it applied the 2019 Amendments to resolve the affirmative defenses pleaded by respondent companies.
The 2019 Amendments have been incorporated into the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, now known as the 2019 Rules on Civil Procedure. And as with all things new, precedence is generally scarce, hence, its application must be done with utmost caution and in strict adherence to its provisions.
Rule 144 of the 2019 Rules, provides:
The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern all cases filed after their effectivity on May 1, 2020, and also all pending proceedings, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. (Emphasis supplied)
As worded, the 2019 Amendments shall also govern all pending cases commenced before they took effect on May 1, 2020, except to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case, the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern. Here, the case commenced with the filing of the complaint in September 2018 and remained pending when the 2019 Amendments took effect.
As it was, Judge Gill applied Section 12, Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments when she supposedly resolved motu proprio the affirmative defense of respondent companies, that is, the complaint failed to state a cause of action, thus:
Section 12. Affirmative defenses. - (a) A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which shall be limited to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent or filing the claim has not been complied with.
(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer. (Emphasis supplied)
The records though readily show that when Judge Gill motu proprio resolved the affirmative defenses on May 22, 2020, the prescribed thirty (30) day period had long expired. ProFriends filed 1ts answer with affirmative defense51 in December 2018; PEC52 and Crisanta Realty53 on January 3, 2019; and Amaia54 on February 27, 2020. Judge Gill should have, therefore, desisted from applying the 2019 Amendments to the case below, specifically Section 12, Rule 8 thereof, because when she did, the same was no longer feasible.
Another. It was inaccurate for Judge Gill to say that she was motu proprio acting on the affirmative defenses. In truth, she had already resolved this common affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action, together with the other affirmative defenses in her Omnibus Order dated February 12, 2020. There, she denied the motions to dismiss and motions to set the affirmative defenses for hearing because in her words, "the issues x x x are complex x x x and are x x x better threshed out in trial."55 Too, PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia all had pending motions for reconsideration of the Omnibus Order dated February 12, 2020 when Judge Gill "motu proprio" resolved their common affirmative defense, and dismissed the case based on, and consequently considered the pending motions for reconsiderations as moot. Thus, instead of applying the 2019 Amendments, Judge Gill could have simply resolved the pending motions for reconsiderations of PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia.
But this is not all. The worst part is when Judge Gill ignored the injustice caused by the application of the 2019 Amendments to the case. For as a consequence, petitioner lost his substantial right to be heard on the common affirmative defense of PEC, Crisanta Realty, and Amaia, and his right to seek a reconsideration of the order of dismissal which were both granted him under the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure."
[ G.R. No. 252467, June 21, 2021 ]
FRANK COLMENAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN HEIR OF THE LATE FRANCISCO COLMENAR,* PETITIONER, VS. APOLLO A. COLMENAR, JEANNIE COLMENAR MENDOZA, VICTORIA JET COLMENAR, PHILIPPINE ESTATES CORPORATION, AMAIA LAND CORPORATION, CRISANTA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PROPERTY COMPANY OF FRIENDS, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF CAVITE, RESPONDENTS.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/jun2021/gr_252467_2021.html
