Santiago v. Bergensen D.Y. Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Virgilio Santiago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, overtime pay, vacation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees against respondent Bergensen D.Y. Philippines. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the dismissal of the illegal dismissal claim but ordered the respondent to pay petitioner P10,000.00 for failure to afford petitioner due process. Procedural History: Petitioner received the NLRC Resolution on December 18, 1998. He filed a motion for reconsideration on December 28, 1998, which was denied by the NLRC on August 5, 1999. Petitioner was informed of this denial on August 18, 1999. On October 11, 1999, he filed a petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed on October 15, 1999, for being filed four days late under the prevailing rules. The Petition: Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration of the CA's dismissal was denied on May 18, 2001. He then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, invoking the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner's petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time. Whether A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, should be applied retroactively to the petitioner's case.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Court of Appeals Resolutions of October 15, 1999 and May 18, 2001 are SET ASIDE, and the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari filed on October 11, 1999, because at that time, the prevailing rule under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended by the Resolution in Bar Matter No. 803) provided that if a motion for reconsideration was denied, the aggrieved party could file the petition within the remaining period, but not less than five days, reckoned from notice of denial. The petitioner received the NLRC Resolution denying his motion for reconsideration on August 18, 1999. Under the prevailing rule, the reglementary period to file the petition for certiorari would have expired on October 7, 1999, making the October 11, 1999 filing four days late. The Court noted that the ten-day period for filing the motion for reconsideration was correctly included in the calculation of the sixty-day reglementary period. On the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC: The Supreme Court found for the petitioner regarding the application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC. This amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on September 1, 2000, provides that the sixty-day period to file a petition for certiorari shall be counted from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. The Court reiterated the principle that rules of procedure, including amendments thereto, may be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, as they do not create new or take away vested rights. Such procedural laws are retroactive in the sense that they apply to pending cases. Therefore, when the appellate court resolved the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on May 18, 2001, the amended rule was already in effect. Applying this amended rule, the petitioner, having received the denial of his motion for reconsideration on August 18, 1999, had sixty days or until October 17, 1999, to file his petition for certiorari. His filing on October 11, 1999, was therefore well within the reglementary period.
Main Doctrine
Procedural laws, including amendments to rules of procedure, are generally retroactive and apply to pending actions and proceedings, provided they do not create new or take away vested rights. This includes the application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, to cases pending at the time of its effectivity.