GR 144074; (March, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144074 . March 20, 2001.
MEDINA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY CORPORATION and ERNESTO Z. MEDINA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROMEO TABURNAL, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Romeo Taburnal, a security guard employed by petitioner corporation, was relieved from his assignment at a client’s request. He subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Taburnal’s favor, ordering his reinstatement with backwages and salary differentials. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Their motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition outright for being filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. It computed the period from petitioners’ receipt of the NLRC’s initial order, finding the petition was filed on the 67th day. Petitioners contended their filing on May 31, 2000, was timely, being the 58th day from receipt of the order denying their motion for reconsideration on April 3, 2000.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed out of time.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and set aside the appellate court’s resolutions. The Court held that the petition was filed within the reglementary period. The applicable rule is Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000. This amendment explicitly states that the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari shall be counted from notice of the denial of a timely filed motion for reconsideration.
Contrary to the respondents’ position, the amendment applies retroactively to this case. The Court reiterated that statutes relating to procedural rules, which do not create new or take away vested rights but merely operate in furtherance of existing remedies, are not within the prohibition against retroactive laws. Procedural laws are generally construed to apply to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, as no vested right attaches to rules of procedure. This retroactive application promotes the objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action.
Since petitioners received the denial of their motion for reconsideration on April 3, 2000, and filed their petition on May 31, 2000, the filing was timely under the amended rule. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for resolution on the merits.