U.P. v. Dizon, G.R.No. 18112, August 23, 2012

FACTS: On August 30, 1990, UP entered into an agreement with Stern builders Corp for the construction of extension building in UPLB. Stern Builders submitted 3 billings but UP only paid for 2, the 3^rd was not paid due to disallowance of COA. When the disallowance was lifted, UP still failed to pay. So Stern Builders sued them. UP failed to file an appeal during the 15-day period. When they appealed on June 3, 2022 arguing that they only received the copy on may 31, 2002, RTC denied it and issued a writ of execution on October 4, 2002. UP files with CA for certiorari but was likewise denied. On December 21, 2004, RTC judge Dizon orders the release of the garnished funds from UP. On January 10, 2005, UP files for certiorari the decision of CA. Petition was granted and TRO filed. After the 60-day period of TRO, RTC directs sheriff to receive the check from DBP. On July 8, 2005, Dizon ordered the non-withdrawal of check because the certiorari is pending. On September 16, 2005, UP files for certiorari which was denied on December 2005 but UP files for petition for review. On January 3, 2007, RTC judge Yadao replaced Dizon, ordered the withdrawal. On January 22, 2007, UP filed TRO with SC which was granted. UP files petition for review for RTC’s decision to withdraw funds.

ISSUE:W/N the fresh-period rule in Neypes v CA can be givenretroactive application

HELD: Yes. The retroactive effect of a procedural law does not come within the legal conception of retroactivity or is not subject to the general rule prohibiting retroactive operation of statutes. Rather, its retroactivity is already given since by the nature of rules of procedure, no vested right is impinged in its application.