Laguio v.

Gamet
Facts:
Evangelina Quiambao filed a case for unlawful detainer on June 7, 1979 against
some 45 defendants. Of the 45, some of them refused to sign the compromise
agreement, who called themselves non-compromising defendants. Evangelina later
on transferred her rights to Efren Nang To Dy who substituted her as party-plaintiff.
Petitioner, Efren Dy filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 35 of the
Revised Rules of Court.
Acting on the said motion, the MTC rendered its decision dated Aug. 15, 1985
approving the compromise agreement and ordered those who did not agree to the
compromise to vacate the land. Petitioner then, filed a motion for execution which
was ordered by the MTC.
Instead of appealing, the non-compromising parties filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, which the petitioner moved to be stricken out, being a prohibited
pleading. MTC also granted the petitioners move.The non-compromising
defendants filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the RTC who nullified
the orders of the MTC judge, ordering to give due course to the appeal.
Petitioner questioned the decision and insisted that the Rule on Summary Procedure
should be applied on the defendants motion for reconsideration if only to treat it as
a prohibited pleading and consequently said Summary Judgment sought to be
appealed became final and executory.
The rationale for the decision is that when this case was filed, the Rules on
Summary Procedure was not yet in effect. Thus, the procedure undertaken by the
MTC is pursuant to the Rules of Court and then the judge, upon a motion for
Summary Judgment filed by petitioner, rendered Summary Judgment on Aug. 15,
1985. That under the Rules of Court, a motion for reconsideration is allowed and will
toll the running of the period of appeal.
Issue: WON the rule on Summary Procedure is applicable to cases filed prior to the
date of its effectivity on Aug. 1, 1983 and still pending on that date?
Ruling: As a general rule, new Rules of Court on procedure apply to pending cases.
Being procedural in nature, those provisions may be applied retroactively. However,
they do not apply to the extent that in the opinion of the court their application
would not be feasible or would work injustice in which event the former procedure
shall apply.
In the case at bar, the application of the rule on Summary Procedure will work
injustice to the private respondents, because it will mean the dismissal of their
appeal. The interest of justice will be better served if private respondents will be
allowed to pursue their appeal. After all, the procedure they have availed of was
allowed under the Revised Rules of Court.
Also, the application of the said rule on Summary Procedure is not feasible. Before
summary procedure could be applied to parties-litigants, prior notice to the latter to
that effect should be made, as mandated by the provisions of Section 3 of the Rules

on Summary Procedure. The summons sent to the defendants does not contain such
notice.