Posted on September 15, 2021
Compromise Agreement Bp 22
The pedentine issued ten checks of P50,000.00 each for a total of P500,000.00, drawn on her account with Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC), Grace Park, Caloocan City Branch. Novales then deposited each of the ten cheques on their respective due dates with the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC). However, these cheques were disgraced by EBC for the reason of „closed accounts“. For each cheque returned to Novales, dishonor notes were issued.  When Romy was sued in the Municipal Trial Court (MTCC) for violating the Driving Control Act (BP 22), during which he had issued bad cheques totalling P330,000, he entered into a compromise agreement with the complainant, in which he promised to pay this sum in monthly instalments of P50,000. On the basis of this agreement, the criminal proceedings were provisionally closed and the MTCC issued a judgment on this basis. B.P.`s explanatory memorandum Blg. 22 was originally launched by the court in Lozano v. Martinez , where we found that: The Attorney General replies in his comment that the petitioner`s arguments are unfounded and assert that criminal laws are those that define crimes and provide for their punishment; The laws defining the jurisdiction of the courts are substantive in nature and not procedural in nature, since they do not concern the mode of action, but the power of the courts to rule and rule on certain cases in which they are vulnerable; R.A. No. 7691 is a substantive right and not a criminal law, since it nowhere in its provisions does it define a crime and does not provide for any penalty of any kind; The purpose of the implementation of R.A. No.
7691 is defined in the introductory sentence as „a law to extend the jurisdiction of the local courts, the communal district courts and the Metropolitan Trial Court“, the jurisdiction of these courts being reassigned to certain civil and criminal cases, which were previously tried exclusively by the regional courts; Therefore, section 22 OF THE CPR does not apply to the bar case; Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time the complaint is lodged and, once acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent legislative regulations relating to the jurisdiction of another court; in this case, the RTC was responsible for deciding the petitioner`s cases when they were filed in October 1992; at that time, R.A. No. 7691 was not yet effective;  in so far as the retroactivity of the R.A. No. 7691 concerns the fact that this is limited only to pending civil cases that have not yet reached the preliminary procedure, as provided for in Section 7 of this case and by the Court of Justice in the People vs. case. .