Practice question
A later statute expressly and validly directs that a defined set of pending cases be transferred to a newly designated tribunal. The original court had valid jurisdiction at filing. A party argues that adherence is absolute and necessarily defeats the express pending-case direction. Which is correct?
- Adherence always overrides legislative jurisdictional changes.
- The court must examine and apply the valid specific transition directive; the continuity doctrine is not absolute.
- The parties may replace the statute by an oral agreement.
- All pending cases automatically end with no transfer.
- Every future law is presumed retroactive even without examination.
Legal references
- People v Mendez, G.R. Nos. 208310–11 and 208662, March 28, 2023, en banc MAIN decision, adherence and exceptional jurisdictional estoppel: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69095
- RA 11576, Section 4, prospective application to civil cases filed from effectivity: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2021/ra_11576_2021.html
- Vda. de Ballesteros v Rural Bank of Canaman, G.R. No. 176260, November 24, 2010, main decision, adherence and curative-law exception: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_176260_2010.html
- SEC v Bonifacio, G.R. Nos. 198425, 201174 and 244462, January 30, 2024, en banc main decision, material allegations and relief: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jan2024/gr_198425_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.