Republic v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The government, through the National Centennial Commission (NCC), initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire a 3,497 sq. m. property in Tejeros, Rosario, Cavite, owned by respondent Fe Manuel and mortgaged to Metrobank. This acquisition was part of the Centennial Freedom Trail (CFT) projects for the celebration of Philippine Independence. The property had been declared a historical landmark by the National Historical Institute. Respondent Fe Manuel did not object to the expropriation, provided just compensation was paid. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City, Branch 88, dismissed the expropriation complaint, ruling that the NCC lacked the authority to acquire property through negotiated sale or recommend condemnation proceedings, and that prerequisite conditions under the Administrative Code, such as presidential determination of necessity and written authority for the Solicitor General, were not met. The RTC denied the NCC's motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, the NCC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed this petition, deeming it filed out of time, and later denied the NCC's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioner, the Republic of the Philippines represented by the National Centennial Commission, seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The core of the petition is that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its certiorari petition as untimely. The petitioner argues that the CA incorrectly applied an amended procedural rule (Section 4, Rule 65) which took effect during the pendency of its case, asserting that procedural rules should not be applied retroactively if it results in injustice. The petitioner contends that the case should have been governed by the rule that allowed the period to be reckoned from the receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, thereby making its filing timely. The petitioner also cites prior jurisprudence where liberality was shown in the application of new procedural rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines before the Court of Appeals was filed out of time. Whether procedural rules, specifically the amendment in A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, should be given retroactive effect.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals are set aside, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petition for certiorari was timely filed. Although the Court of Appeals correctly observed that the petition was late under the version of Section 4, Rule 65 prescribed by Bar Matter No. 803, the subsequent amendment in A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC changed the reckoning point. Under the new rule, the 60-day period begins from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The record shows that the petitioner received the denial of its MR on October 12, 1998, and filed the certiorari petition on December 11, 1998. Calculated from the receipt of the MR denial, the filing occurred exactly on the 60th day, thus satisfying the procedural requirement for a timely filing. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC is procedural and remedial in character and must be applied retroactively to pending cases. Citing Systems Factors Corporation v. NLRC, the Court emphasized that procedural laws do not create new rights but only operate in furtherance of existing remedies; thus, they do not fall under the general prohibition against retroactive statutes. There is no vested right in rules of procedure, and the retroactive application of this specific amendment has been consistently ordered in recent jurisprudence like Unity Fishing Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Docena v. Lapesura. Therefore, because the action was pending when the amendment took effect, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the more liberal reckoning point provided by the latest rule.
Main Doctrine
Procedural rules, particularly amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, may be given retroactive effect to pending actions if they are procedural or remedial in character and do not create new or remove vested rights, thereby promoting a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases.