Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Set Aside Remanded Back To CA

    Uploaded by

    Reyshanne Joy B Marquez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was timely filed and should not have been dismissed. Specifically: 1. The petitioner filed the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals 58 days after receiving the order from the NLRC denying its motion for reconsideration. 2. An amendment to the rules took effect that extended the reglementary period to file a certiorari petition to 60 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 3. The Supreme Court held that this amendment applied retroactively and that the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition as untimely. The case was remanded back to the Court of Appeals

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Set Aside Remanded Back To CA

    Uploaded by

    Reyshanne Joy B Marquez
    29 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was timely filed and should not have been dismissed. Specifically: 1. The petitioner filed the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals 58 days after receiving the order from the NLRC denying its motion for reconsideration. 2. An amendment to the rules took effect that extended the reglementary period to file a certiorari petition to 60 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 3. The Supreme Court held that this amendment applied retroactively and that the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition as untimely. The case was remanded back to the Court of Appeals

    Original Description:

    cases

    Original Title

    1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was timely filed and should not have been dismissed. Specifically: 1. The petitioner filed the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals 58 days after receiving the order from the NLRC denying its motion for reconsideration. 2. An amendment to the rules took effect that extended the reglementary period to file a certiorari petition to 60 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 3. The Supreme Court held that this amendment applied retroactively and that the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition as untimely. The case was remanded back to the Court of Appeals

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    Set Aside Remanded Back To CA

    Uploaded by

    Reyshanne Joy B Marquez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was timely filed and should not have been dismissed. Specifically: 1. The petitioner filed the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals 58 days after receiving the order from the NLRC denying its motion for reconsideration. 2. An amendment to the rules took effect that extended the reglementary period to file a certiorari petition to 60 days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 3. The Supreme Court held that this amendment applied retroactively and that the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition as untimely. The case was remanded back to the Court of Appeals

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MEDINA INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY CORP (Medina) vs CA (technically, beyond naman talaga.

    (technically, beyond naman talaga. Nagfile kasi sa 67th day imbis na dapat within 60 days
    MARCH 20, 2001 lang. Tama ba na hindi tinanggap ng CA yung petiton kahit medyo lampas ng 60 days yung
    pagkakafile)
    FACTS:
    1. Respondent Tarbunal was hired by the petitioner corporation as security guard on Sept 1996 HELD:
    and was assigned to one of its clients. NO.
    2. However, the client requested that Tarbunal be relieved from work because of several
    violations – being late for duty, below standard performance and exceeding six months duty The above conclusion is consonant with the provision in Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules
    in the company. of Civil Procedure that "(T)hese Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
    3. Tarbunal filed a complaint for illegal dismissal claiming for separation pay, non-payment of objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
    legal/special holiday and overtime pay, underpayment of 13 th month pay and cash bond and proceeding."
    tax refund.
    4. On April 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment ordering reinstatement of Tarbunal
    without loss of seniority rights and the payment of full backwages and salary differentials.  Contrary to the position of respondents that such amendment should not apply in this case,
    5. Medina appealed to the NLRC which dismissed the same for lack of jurisdiction. MR was the Court ruled that the amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC wherein the sixty day
    also denied. period to file a petition for certiorari is reckoned from receipt of the resolution denying the
    6. Medina filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which dismissed the petition outright for motion for reconsideration should be deemed applicable.
    having been filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period or on them 67th day per its
    resolution on June 2, 2000.  Remedial statutes or statues relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which do not
    - CA ruled in this manner since Medina received on Nov 10, 1999 the Order dated create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or
    August 26, 1999 of the NLRC and the MR was filed on Nov 19, 1999. confirmation of rights already existing do not come within the legal conception of a
    - Copy of the said order was received by Medina on April 3, 200 while the petition was retroactive law, but, will be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of
    filed with the CA on May 31, 2000. their passage like in the case at bar.
    - CA did not discuss the merits of the petition.
     The resolutions dated June 2, 2000 which dismissed the petition for certiorari is set aside
    Hence, this petition. and the case is remanded back to CA for further proceedings.

    1. Petitioner’s contention: The petition for certiorari filed with CA was within the reglementary
    period pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civ Pro. They further claimed that when the
    assailed Order was received on April 3, 2000, the petition was filed on May 31, 2000 which
    was only the 58th day.
    2. Respondent’s contention: Tarbunal said that he is aware that Sec 4, Rule 65 of the 1997
    Rules on Civ Pro was later amended and took effect on September 1, 2000, hence, when the
    petition was filed with CA on June 2, 2000 was not yet covered by said amendment.

    ISSUE:
    WON the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the reglementary period.

    You might also like