APPEALS: CAN THE FRESH PERIOD RULE (NEYPES DOCTRINE) BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT? OTHERWISE STATED, DOES IT APPLY TO ALL CASES PENDING AT THE TIME OF ITS PASSAGE?

 yES. The retroactivity of the Neypes rule in cases where the period for appeal had lapsed prior to the date of promulgation of Neypes on September 14, 2005, was clearly explained by the Court in Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia, G.R. No. 173942, June 25, 2008, stating thus:

“The determinative issue is whether the fresh period rule announced in Neypes could retroactively apply in cases where the period for appeal had lapsed prior to 14 September 2005 when Neypes was promulgated. That question may be answered with the guidance of the general rule that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure” (emphasis supplied). 

Amendments to procedural rules are procedural or remedial in character as they do not create new or remove vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. 

In Sumiran vs. Damaso, the Supreme Court stated that since this case was already pending in this Court at the time of promulgation of Neypes, then, ineluctably, the Court must also apply the ruling to the present case. Ergo, petitioner is entitled to a fresh period of 15 days − counted from May 19, 2003, the date of petitioners receipt of the Order denying his motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision − within which to file his notice of appeal. Therefore, when he filed said notice on May 29, 2003, or only ten (10) days after receipt of the Order denying his motion for reconsideration, his period to appeal had not yet lapsed (SUMIRAN vs. DAMASO, G.R. No. 162518, August, 19, 2009, Third Division, Peralta, J.).