4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly unless the contrary is expressly provided,[8] or unless the law is procedural or curative in nature,[9] there is no serious question about the retroactive applicability of Republic Act No. 8042 to the appeal of the POEA’s decision on petitioners’ disciplinary action against respondents. In a way, Republic Act No. 8042 was a procedural law due to its providing or omitting guidelines on appeal. A law is procedural, according to De Los Santos v. Vda. De Mangubat,[10] when it – [R]efers to the adjective law which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to administer justice. Procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statues — they may be given retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure. Republic Act No. 8042 applies to petitioners’ complaint by virtue of the case being then still pending or undetermined at the time of the law’s passage, there being no vested rights in rules of procedure.[11] They could not validly insist that the reckoning period to ascertain which law or rule should apply was the time when the disciplinary complaint was originally filed in the POEA in 1993. Moreover, Republic Act No. 8042 and its implementing rules and regulations were already in effect when petitioners took their appeal. A statute that eliminates the right to appeal and considers the judgment rendered final and unappealable only destroys the right to appeal, but not the right to prosecute an appeal that has been perfected prior to its passage, for, at that stage, the right to appeal has already vested and cannot be impaired.[12] Conversely and by analogy, an appeal that is perfected when a new statute affecting appellate jurisdiction comes into effect should comply with the provisions of the new law, unless otherwise provided by the new law. Relevantly, petitioners need to be reminded that the right to appeal from a decision is a privilege established by positive laws, which, upon authorizing the taking of the appeal, point out the cases in which it is proper to present the appeal, the procedure to be observed, and the courts by which the appeal is to be proceeded with and resolved.[13] This is why we consistently hold that the right to appeal is statutory in character, and is available only if granted by law or statute.[14] When Republic Act No. 8042 withheld the appellate jurisdiction of the NLRC in respect of cases decided by the POEA, the appellate jurisdiction was vested in the Secretary of Labor in accordance with his power of supervision and control under Section 38(1), Chapter 7, Title II, Book III of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, to wit: Section 38. Definition of Administrative Relationship. – Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Code or in other laws defining the special relationships of particular agencies, administrative relationships shall be categorized and defined as follows: Supervision and Control. – Supervision and control shall include authority to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55060 6/8