Romero v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Arturo M. Romero (Romero) was hired by Hadi Haider & Bros. Co. (HHBC) and deployed to Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, HHBC sent Romero back to the Philippines to recruit workers for Syria. Romero alleged that HHBC failed to remit his full salary for October to December 1995 and requested the differential. Instead, Romero received a notice of termination dated February 19, 1996, and was instructed to return to Saudi Arabia. Romero did not return and instead filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against HHBC, impleading CBM International Manpower Services (CBM) and its owner Elpidio Tan as local recruiters. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed Romero's complaint, finding that Romero failed to establish that CBM processed his employment papers or was responsible for his deployment to Saudi Arabia. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Romero's petition for certiorari, holding that it was filed out of time based on Circular No. 39-98, which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The CA found that Romero filed his petition 62 days after receiving the NLRC Resolution dated March 12, 1999. The Petition: Romero filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of his petition for certiorari. He argued that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for being filed out of time and that the NLRC erred in finding that HHBC did not illegally dismiss him and that CBM was not responsible for his recruitment and deployment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing Romero's petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. Whether HHBC illegally dismissed Romero and if CBM is solidarily liable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated October 29, 1999, and March 6, 2000, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that while the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly applied Circular No. 39-98 at the time of its resolution, the subsequent enactment of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC must be applied retroactively. Under Circular No. 39-98, a petitioner only had the remaining balance of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari after the denial of a motion for reconsideration. However, A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC amended Section 4, Rule 65 to grant a fresh 60-day period from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Court characterized this amendment as curative in nature, designed to resolve the 'tremendous confusion' and mass dismissals caused by the previous rule. Following the precedent in Narzoles v. NLRC, curative statutes are intended to supply defects and enable parties to carry into effect that which was intended but failed due to statutory disability. Therefore, the filing of Romero's petition on September 28, 1999—which was within 60 days of his receipt of the denial of reconsideration on August 9, 1999—is now deemed timely. Consequently, the procedural barrier is removed, and the case must be heard on its merits. On Issue 2: The Court declined to rule on the substantive issues of illegal dismissal and CBM's liability as these are factual in nature. It held that the determination of whether Romero was illegally dismissed and whether CBM was responsible for his recruitment and deployment requires an evaluation of evidence. Since the CA dismissed the petition on a purely procedural ground, it had not yet addressed these factual issues. Applying the principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, the Court ordered the remand of the case to the CA. This ensures that the petitioner is not deprived of his right to have the merits of his labor case reviewed due to a technicality that has since been cured by remedial legislation.
Main Doctrine
A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is a curative statute that should be applied retroactively, granting a fresh 60-day period from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari.