Systems Factor V NLRC

1
G.R. No. 143789
November 27, 2000
SYSTEMS FACTORS CORPORATION and MODESTO DEAN, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RONALDO LAZAGA and LUIS
C. SINGSON, respondents.
RESOLUTION
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
The instant petition seeks to set aside the Resolution dated February 15, 2000
dismissing the petition for certiorari and the Resolution dated June 22, 2000
denying the motion for reconsideration, both issued by the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 56849.
Petitioner Systems Factors Corporation is a corporation engaged in the business
of installing electrical system in buildings and infrastructure projects wherein it
employs electricians, engineers and other personnel. Private respondents
Ronaldo Lazaga and Luis Singson were employed by petitioner corporation as
electricians in one of its projects. Private respondents filed a complaint against
petitioners for illegal dismissal and non-payment of backwages, service
incentive fees, premium pay, separation pay and other allowances. The Labor
Arbiter rendered judgment ordering petitioners to reinstate private respondents
to their former positions and to pay them backwages. On appeal, the NLRC
affirmed the LA-decision. Petitioners allegedly received the NLRC judgment on
August 10, 1999 and a motion for reconsideration thereto was filed on August
20, 1999. On November 25, 1999, petitioners received the NLRC-Resolution
dated November 11, 1999 denying their motion for reconsideration. Hence, on
January 24, 2000, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 65
with the Court of Appeals. On February 15, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a
resolution denying the petition for failure of petitioners to comply with
procedural requirements, i.e., (1) the petition was filed out of time, and (2)
except for the assailed NLRC resolutions, the documents and material portions
referred to in the petition were not certified. On Motion for Reconsideration, the
Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated June 22, 2000, applied this Courts
ruling in the case of Cadayona vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 128772,
February 3, 2000 and gave weight to petitioners submission that only the
questioned resolution need be certified and not the entire records. Said motion
for reconsideration was nonetheless denied in view of its finding that the
petition was filed out of time.
The Court of Appeals, in finding that the petition for certiorari was filed out of
time, reckoned the counting of the period of sixty (60) days, pursuant to Section
4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, from receipt on August 10, 1999
of the NLRC-resolution dismissing the appeal which is interrupted by the filing on
August 20, 1999 of the Motion for Reconsideration; and the remaining period to
be counted from receipt on November 25, 1999 of the resolution denying the
motion for reconsideration. As found by the Court of Appeals, the petition was
filed late as petitioners had fifty (50) days remaining or until January 14, 2000
within which to file the petition for certiorari. The petition for certiorari was filed
only on January 24, 2000.
In the instant petition, petitioners invoke A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect
on September 1, 2000, specifically amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure wherein the sixty-day period is reckoned from receipt of
the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Thus, from receipt by
petitioners on November 25, 1999 of the resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration, the filing of the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
on January 24, 2000 would have been within the reglementary period.
Petitioners argue that before a party can file a petition for certiorari, a motion for
reconsideration is a mandatory pleading and thus, it is logical to assume that
the sixty-day period should be reckoned from notice of resolution denying the
motion for reconsideration. Petitioners likewise argue that remedial laws should
be construed liberally in order to give litigants ample opportunity to prove their
respective claims and avoid denial of substantial justice due to legal
technicalities.
On September 18, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution requiring respondents to
comment on the petition.
Respondents filed their Comment alleging that the issue in the present petition
is not whether liberality should be applied. They contend that the controversy
sought to be laid to rest would multiply as similar requests for liberality, leniency
and exceptions would be filed. They argue that the Labor Code mandates that
conflicts in the interpretation of the law and the rules should be resolved in favor
of the working man, respondents herein. Moreover, the plea of liberality should
be denied as there is no reason other than neglect of counsel that may compel
this Court to treat this case as an exception to the rule.
We find for the petitioners.
A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (as amended by the Resolution of July 21, 1998), which took effect
September 1, 2000 and provides:
"SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. --- The petition shall be filed not later
than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution.1wphi1 In
case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such
motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice
of the denial of said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or
omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by
the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not
the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in
aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasijudicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition
shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling
reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15) days."
We hold that the amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC wherein the sixty-day
period to file a petition for certiorari is reckoned from receipt of the resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration should be deemed applicable. Remedial
statutes or statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which do not
create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the
remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within the legal
conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against retroactive operation
of statutes.1 Statutes regulating to the procedure of the courts will be construed
as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.
Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The retroactive
application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may
feel that he is adversely affected. 2 The reason is that as a general rule, no

vested right may attach to nor arise from procedural laws.3
The above conclusion is in consonance with the provision in Section 6, Rule 1 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that "(T)hese Rules shall be liberally construed
in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding."
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated
February 15, 2000 and June 22, 2000 are hereby SET ASIDE and the case is
REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

Systems Factor V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systems Factor V NLRC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systems Factor V NLRC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

G.R. No. 143789

November 27, 2000

SYSTEMS FACTORS CORPORATION and MODESTO DEAN, petitioners,

feel that he is adversely affected. 2 The reason is that as a general rule, no

You might also like