FACTS: In this case, petitioner- employees received the adverse NLRC decision on July 23, 2993 and filed a motion for reconsideration on August 3, 1998. On September 1m 1998, Section 4, Rule 65, was amended by Circular No. 39-99 providing that the 60- day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be interrupted by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and in the event of the denial, petitioner only has the remaining period within which to file the petition, the aforementioned amended took effect. Previous to this amendment, a petitioner was given 60 days from notice of judgment within which to file the petition.
On October 19, 1998, petitioners received a copy of the NLRC resolution denying their motion for reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court on December 17, 1998; such was referred to the CA, and denied due to late filing. Petitioners last day to file their petition for certiorari is December 8, 1998. The Amendments brought about by Circular No. 39-38 were already in force as statutes regulating the procedure of the courts are applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense. The CA correctly deducted the 16 days it took for petitioners to file their MR.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition was filed out of time.
HELD: No. Due to the tremendous confusion brought about the amendments of Circular 39-98, further amendments have been made to Section 4, Rule 65. The Court resolved in A.M, No. 00-2-03, SC, to further amend section 4 Rule 65 to the effect that in case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed, the 60 day period shall be countered from notice of the denial of said motion. The latest amendments took effects on September 1, 2000. Yet since curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law to validate legal proceedings which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain legal requirements. Curative statues, therefore, by their very essence, are retroactive; such conclusion was made bearing in mind that the substantive aspects of this case involve the rights and benefits, even the livelihood, of petitioner- employees.
0 comments:
Post a Comment