GR 148333; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148333 November 17, 2004
VIRGILIO SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. BERGENSEN D.Y. PHILIPPINES and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Virgilio Santiago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims against respondent Bergensen D.Y. Philippines. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), in a Resolution dated November 16, 1998, affirmed the finding of no illegal dismissal but ordered respondent to pay petitioner P10,000 for procedural due process violation. Petitioner received the NLRC Resolution on December 18, 1998, and filed a motion for reconsideration on December 28, 1998. The NLRC denied this motion with finality in a Resolution dated August 5, 1999. Petitioner, through counsel, alleged he received notice of this denial on August 18, 1999.
On October 11, 1999, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition for being filed four days late. It computed the 60-day reglementary period under the then-prevailing Rule 65, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which stated that the period is interrupted by a timely motion for reconsideration and resumes upon notice of denial. Counting from the receipt of the original NLRC Resolution on December 18, 1998, and including the period consumed by the motion for reconsideration, the court found the petition due on October 7, 1999. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being filed out of time, considering the subsequent amendment to the procedural rules.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the assailed CA Resolutions, and remanded the case. The Court applied the amended Rule 65, Section 4 introduced by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000. The new rule explicitly states that if a motion for reconsideration is filed, the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari shall be counted from notice of the denial of that motion.
At the time petitioner filed his CA petition and motion for reconsideration thereof, the old rule was in effect, and the CA’s computation was technically correct. However, when the CA resolved petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on May 18, 2001, the new, more liberal rule was already in force. Rules of procedure can be given retroactive application to cases still pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, as they do not create or destroy vested rights but merely affect the remedy. Applying the amended rule, petitioner’s 60-day period to file certiorari started from his receipt of the NLRC’s denial on August 18, 1999, making his filing on October 11, 1999, timely. The liberal retroactive application serves the objective of securing a just disposition.