Facts:  The petitioners filed a case of syndicated estafa against Celso Delos

Angeles and his associates after the petitioners were defrauded in a business

venture. Thereafter, the DOJ Secretary issued Department Order 182 which directs

all prosecutors in the country to forward all cases already filed against Celso Delos

Angeles, Jr. and his associates to the secretariat of DOJ in Manila for appropriate

action. However, in a separate order which is Memorandum dated March 2009, it

was said that cases already filed against Celso Delos Angeles et. al of the Legacy

Group of Companies in Cagayan De Oro City need not be sent anymore to the

Secretariat of DOJ in Manila. Because of such DOJ orders, the complaint of

petitioners was forwarded to the secretariat of the Special Panel of the DOJ in

Manila. Aggrieved, Spouses Dacudao filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition and

mandamus assailing to the respondent Secretary of justice grave abuse of

discretion in issuing the department Order and the Memorandum, which according

to the violated their right to due process, right to equal protection of the law and

right to speedy disposition of the cases. The petitioners opined that orders were

unconstitutional or exempting from coverage cases already filed and pending at the

Prosecutor’s Office of Cagayan De Oro City. They contended that the assailed

issuances should cover only future cases against Delos Angeles, Jr., et al, not those

already being investigated. They maintained that DO 182 was issued in violation of

the prohibition against passing laws with retroactive effect.

Issue:     Whether or not the assailed issuances can be given retroactive effect.

Ruling:     Yes. As a general rule, laws shall have no retroactive effect. However,

exceptions exist, and one such exception concerns a law that is procedural in

nature. The reason is that a remedial statute or a statute relating to remedies or

modes of procedure does not create new rights or take away vested rights but

operates only in furtherance of the remedy or the confirmation already existing

rights. The retroactive application is not violative of any right of a person who may

feel adversely affected, for, no vested right generally attaches to or arises from

procedural law.