PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Go Ko
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Emily Rose Go Ko and Kiddy Lim Chao filed a complaint against petitioner PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. The complaint sought the annulment or reformation of a chattel mortgage, the annulment of a restructuring agreement, the fixing of the correct principal amount, and an injunction with a prayer for preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, granted the respondents' prayer for a preliminary injunction via an Order dated February 16, 2000. Petitioner received this Order on February 18, 2000, and filed a motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2000. This motion was denied by Order dated May 22, 2000, which petitioner received on June 2, 2000. Fifty-nine days later, on July 31, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, by Resolution of August 23, 2000, dismissed the petition, finding it was filed beyond the reglementary period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by Circular No. 39-98. Petitioner received this Resolution on September 7, 2000, and filed a motion for reconsideration on September 21, 2000. This motion was denied by the Court of Appeals on June 6, 2001. The Petition: Petitioner PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. seeks review of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated August 23, 2000, and June 6, 2001. The petition argues that the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, effected by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC on September 1, 2000, which reverted to the old rule allowing a fresh 60-day period from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari, should have been retroactively applied to its case. Petitioner contends that this curative amendment should validate its petition, which was filed within the 60-day period as per the amended rule, even though it was initially dismissed by the Court of Appeals for being filed beyond the period prescribed by the prior amendment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed beyond the reglementary period, considering subsequent amendments to the Rules of Court. Whether the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC should be retroactively applied to the petitioner's case, and the implications for the timeliness of the petition.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The August 23, 2000 and June 6, 2001 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are vacated, and the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the reglementary period and the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC: The Supreme Court held that the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which reverted to the old rule allowing a fresh 60-day period from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari, is curative in nature and thus retroactive. The Court observed that the previous amendment by Circular No. 39-98 had caused confusion and led to the dismissal of numerous cases. To remedy this, the Court deemed it wise to revert to the old rule, providing a fresh period. On the retroactive application and its effect on the petition's timeliness: This curative nature means the amendment applies even to cases pending at the time of its effectivity, September 1, 2000. Therefore, the petitioner's filing of the petition for certiorari was deemed timely under the curative amendment, as it was filed within the 60-day period from the denial of its motion for reconsideration, considering the purpose of the amendment was to prevent injustice and allow cases to be resolved on the merits. The Court cited the case of Narzoles v. NLRC as precedent for the retroactive application of procedural rules to pending cases, emphasizing that no vested rights attach to procedural laws. The Court found that the CA's dismissal based on the strict interpretation of the period under Circular No. 39-98 was erroneous in light of the subsequent curative amendment. The substantive aspects of the case, involving rights and livelihood, further supported the application of the curative statute. Consequently, the CA's resolutions dismissing the petition were vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A curative statute, such as the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, is retroactive in nature and applies to pending cases, allowing a fresh 60-day period from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari.