GR 145415; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145415 . February 2, 2001
UNITY FISHING DEVELOPMENT CORP. and/or ANTONIO DEE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DOMINADOR LAGUIN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Unity Fishing Development Corp. and Antonio Dee were ordered by the Labor Arbiter to pay backwages and separation pay to respondent Dominador Laguin for illegal dismissal. The NLRC affirmed this decision. Petitioners received the NLRC resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on October 6, 1999. On December 6, 1999, they filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals via registered mail.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as filed out of time, applying the rule then in force which considered only the remaining period from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The CA calculated that the filing was eleven days late. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing for the retroactive application of a recent amendment to the Rules of Civil Procedure, but the CA denied their motion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time by not applying retroactively the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65, which provides a fresh 60-day period from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the CA for proceedings on the merits. The Court held that the amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, is procedural and should be applied retroactively to pending cases.
The legal logic is grounded on the nature of procedural laws. Statutes regulating court procedure do not create or destroy vested rights but operate in furtherance of existing remedies. As such, they are generally construed to apply to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. No vested right attaches to procedural rules, and their retroactive application is not violative of any party’s rights. This conclusion promotes the objective of the rules for a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases.
Applying the amended rule, the 60-day period for filing the petition for certiorari began from petitioners’ receipt of the NLRC denial on October 6, 1999, making the last day December 5, 1999. Since December 5, 1999, was a Sunday, the period extended to the next working day, December 6, 1999, pursuant to Rule 22, Section 1. Therefore, the petition filed on December 6, 1999, was timely. The CA’s dismissal based on the old computation was incorrect.