G.R. No. 145043 ; February 13, 2004
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Siros Solati, petitioners vs. FOP Corporation, Felix O. Pontino, and Jover D. Pontino, respondents.

FACTS

The dispute originated from a Fishery and Management Contract between the Industrial Fishing Company of Iran (IFCO) and respondent FOP Corporation. The contract was terminated via a Memorandum of Agreement, wherein FOP was to remit IFCO’s share to an account nominated by IFCO. IFCO nominated the petitioner Embassy as payee. Petitioners allege that checks issued to the Embassy were dishonored. Respondents counter that full payment was made directly to IFCO’s representative, Siros Solati, and that subsequent checks issued to the Embassy were only issued under duress.
Respondents filed a civil case for Annulment of Document and/or Negotiable Instrument with Damages against the Embassy and Solati in the RTC of General Santos City. Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, invoking the Embassy’s immunity from suit and improper service of summons on Solati. The RTC denied the motion, ruling the Embassy waived immunity by becoming a payee. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The core legal logic pertains to the retroactive application of procedural rules. Petitioners received the RTC order denying their motion for reconsideration on May 22, 2000. They filed their Petition for Certiorari with the CA on July 19, 2000. The CA applied the old rule, which provided a non-extendible 60-day period from notice of the judgment or order sought to be assailed, and found the petition filed 58 days from the denial of the motion for reconsideration to be late.
The Supreme Court clarified that during the pendency of the CA petition, an amendment to the Rules of Court (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, effective September 1, 2000) took effect. The new rule explicitly states that if a motion for reconsideration is filed, the 60-day period for filing a certiorari petition shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. This amendment is procedural in character; it does not create or remove vested rights but merely operates in furtherance of the remedy. Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Since the CA petition was still pending when the new rule took effect, the amended period should govern. Counting from May 22, 2000, the filing on July 19, 2000 was well within the 60-day period. Thus, the CA erred in dismissing the petition. The case was remanded to the CA for further proceedings.