G.R. No. L-8404 & L-7832, January 29, 1913
AGUSTIN J. DE MONTILLA vs. LA CORPORACION DE PP. AGUSTINOS CALZADOS, ET AL. and FLORENTINA ANCAJAS vs. DIONISIO JAKOSALEM, SHERIFF, ET AL.

FACTS

Two consolidated cases raised the issue of the official language to be used in Philippine courts. In G.R. No. L-8404, the defendant-appellant moved to strike the plaintiff-appellant’s brief from the record because it was written in Spanish, “not written in the official language.” In G.R. No. L-7832, a motion was filed to vacate a judgment of the Supreme Court on the ground that it was not written in English. Both the brief and the judgment in question were in Spanish and pertained to actions commenced before January 1, 1913. The motions hinged on the interpretation of Act No. 1946 , which amended Section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure to state: “The official language of all the courts and their records shall be the Spanish language until the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen. After that date, English shall be the official language.”

ISSUE

Whether Act No. 1946 , which designated English as the official language of the courts after January 1, 1913, applies retroactively to actions and proceedings begun prior to that date.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the motion in G.R. No. L-8404 and overruled the objection in G.R. No. L-7832, holding that Act No. 1946 applies only prospectively to actions and proceedings commenced on or after January 1, 1913. The Court applied the well-established rule of statutory construction that all statutes are to be construed as having prospective operation only, unless the legislature’s intent to give them retrospective effect is expressly declared or necessarily implied from the language used. Any doubt must be resolved against retroactivity. Act No. 1946 contains no express words indicating retroactive application, and its clear intent is prospective. While courts may be more liberal in interpreting procedural laws retrospectively, the Court found no compelling reason to relax the rule here, as retroactive application could cause serious inconvenience and potentially prejudice substantial rights. Therefore, the Spanish language remained permissible for court records and proceedings in cases initiated before January 1, 1913.