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, 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 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 this 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 received notice of this denial on August 18, 1999. On October 11, 1999, he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for being filed four days late. It applied the then-prevailing rule under Section 4, Rule 65, as amended by the Court’s July 21, 1998 Resolution. Under that rule, the 60-day period to file certiorari is counted from notice of the assailed judgment, and the filing of a motion for reconsideration merely interrupts the period. The period resumes upon denial of the motion. The appellate court computed that the reglementary period ended on October 7, 1999, making the October 11 filing late.
ISSUE
Whether the subsequent amendment to the Rules of Court (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC), which changed the computation of the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari, may be applied retroactively to deem petitioner’s petition as timely filed.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the case remanded to the Court of Appeals. The Court held that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, is a procedural rule that may be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of its enactment. The amendment provides that if a motion for reconsideration is filed, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. This is a departure from the old rule where the period was merely interrupted.
At the time petitioner filed his certiorari petition and his motion for reconsideration in the CA, the old rule was in force. However, when the CA resolved his motion for reconsideration on May 18, 2001, the new rule was already effective. Procedural rules, which do not create or destroy vested rights but merely prescribe the means for enforcing existing rights, are generally retroactive in that they apply to pending and undetermined cases. Applying the new 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, well within the reglementary period. The dismissal by the CA was therefore erroneous.