G.R. No. 143789 . November 27, 2000.
Systems Factors Corporation and Modesto Dean, petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Ronaldo Lazaga and Luis C. Singson, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Systems Factors Corporation and Modesto Dean were ordered by the Labor Arbiter to reinstate private respondents Ronaldo Lazaga and Luis Singson and pay them backwages, a decision affirmed by the NLRC. Petitioners received the NLRC judgment on August 10, 1999, filed a motion for reconsideration on August 20, 1999, and received the denial of that motion on November 25, 1999. They subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals on January 24, 2000.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding it filed out of time. It computed the 60-day reglementary period from receipt of the initial NLRC resolution on August 10, 1999, interrupted by the motion for reconsideration, and with the remaining period to run from November 25, 1999. Under this computation, the petition due on January 14, 2000, was filed ten days late on January 24. The CA also initially cited non-compliance with certification requirements but later focused on the timeliness issue.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time, specifically regarding the proper reckoning point for the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the CA’s resolutions. The Court held that the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, should be applied retroactively to this case. This amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 explicitly states that the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari shall be counted from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration.
The legal logic is grounded in the nature of procedural laws. Statutes or rules relating to procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights but merely operate in furtherance of the remedy, do not fall under the general rule against retroactivity. Procedural laws are construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, as no vested right attaches to rules of procedure. This retroactive application is not violative of any right of the party affected. Therefore, reckoning the period from petitioners’ receipt of the denial of their motion for reconsideration on November 25, 1999, their filing on January 24, 2000, was within the 60-day period. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.