Alindao vs Joson : 114132 : November 14, 1996 : J Davide Jr : Third D... or in excess of jurisdiction. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/114132.htm [28] We likewise agree with the petitioner that the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulations should be given retroactive application. The position taken by respondent Joson on this issue is tenuous. The said Rules and Regulations, not affecting substantive rights, are clearly procedural in nature. It is settled that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect, there being no vested [29] rights in rules of procedure. We have recognized an exception to the rule that where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to the final determination of the case is not affected by new legislation transferring jurisdiction over such proceedings to [30] another tribunal. This exception is when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character. Thus, this Court gave retroactive effect to P.D. No. 1691 which substantially re-enacted Article 217 of the Labor Code after the latter was amended by P.D. No. 1367 by, inter alia, removing from the enumeration of cases falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters money [31] If this were so, then it is with more reason claims arising from employer-employee relations. that the provision of the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulations vesting upon the Secretary of Labor jurisdiction over motions for reconsideration (to be treated as petitions for review) should be given retroactive effect, not only because it is a rule of procedure, but also because it is remedial or curative since the 1985 POEA Rules and Regulations is unclear as to the agency which shall resolve such motions. Section 18, Rule VI of Book II of the latter merely states that a motion for reconsideration of an order of suspension or an appeal to the Minister (Secretary) from an order cancelling a license or authority may be entertained only when filed with the LRO within ten (10) working days from service of the order or decision. Office Order No. 3, Series of 1991, dated 14 November 1991 and issued by POEA Adjudication Office Director Jaime P. Jimenez, ordering all Hearing Officers of the Adjudication Office to resolve on or before the end of November 1991 all pending motions for reconsideration filed prior to the effectivity of the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulations provided no authority for respondent Joson to resolve on 10 February 1994 Hishams motion to reconsider the Order of 20 November 1990. We now examine the pertinent provisions of the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulations. Book VI is entitled Recruitment Violation and Related Cases, while Rule IV (Review) thereof provides the procedure and mechanisms of an appeal from an order of the POEA in recruitment violation cases. Section 1 of Rule IV vests exclusive jurisdiction to review the said cases upon the Secretary of Labor and Employment, while Sections 2 and 3 of Rule IV declare: Section 2. When to File. -- Petitions for review shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the Order by the parties. All Motions for Reconsideration shall be treated as a petition for review. Section 3. Effects of Filing a Petition for Review. -- The filing of a petition for review shall not automatically stay the execution of the order of suspension unless restrained by the Secretary. It is thus clear that under the 1991 POEA Rules and Regulations, Hishams Motion for the Reconsideration of the Order of 28 November 1990 on the administrative aspect of the case (recruitment, etc.) was to be treated as a petition for review which should have been resolved by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. We agree, however, with the POEA that the questioned Order of 10 February 1994, taken in its entirety, only pertains to the 28 November 1990 Order on the Administrative aspect (recruitment) of the case. Any vague reference to the subject or merits of the Decision of 28 November 1990 cannot modify nor amend the Decision which had long become final and already the subject of a writ of execution. Such reference is, at worst, merely imprecise 5 of 7 1/20/2016 2:10 PM