Systems Factors v. NLRC - Art. 4 NCC (Prohibition On Retroactivity of Laws Exception)

Republic of the Philippines allowances.
The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment ordering

SUPREME COURT petitioners to reinstate private respondents to their former
positions and to pay them backwages. On appeal, the NLRC
THIRD DIVISION affirmed the LA-decision. Petitioners allegedly received the
NLRC judgment on August 10, 1999 and a motion for
G.R. No. 143789 November 27, 2000 reconsideration thereto was filed on August 20, 1999. On
November 25, 1999, petitioners received the NLRC-Resolution
SYSTEMS FACTORS CORPORATION and MODESTO dated November 11, 1999 denying their motion for
DEAN, petitioners, reconsideration. Hence, on January 24, 2000, petitioners filed a
vs. petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 65 with the Court of
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Appeals. On February 15, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a
RONALDO LAZAGA and LUIS C. resolution denying the petition for failure of petitioners to
SINGSON, respondents. comply with procedural requirements, i.e., (1) the petition was
filed out of time, and (2) except for the assailed NLRC
RESOLUTION resolutions, the documents and material portions referred to in
the petition were not certified. On Motion for Reconsideration,
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated June 22, 2000,
applied this Court’s ruling in the case of Cadayona vs. Court of
The instant petition seeks to set aside the Resolution dated Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 128772, February 3, 2000 and gave
February 15, 2000 dismissing the petition for certiorari and the weight to petitioners’ submission that only the questioned
Resolution dated June 22, 2000 denying the motion for resolution need be certified and not the entire records. Said
reconsideration, both issued by the Court of Appeals in CA- motion for reconsideration was nonetheless denied in view of
G.R. SP No. 56849. its finding that the petition was filed out of time.
Petitioner Systems Factors Corporation is a corporation The Court of Appeals, in finding that the petition for certiorari
engaged in the business of installing electrical system in was filed out of time, reckoned the counting of the period of
buildings and infrastructure projects wherein it employs sixty (60) days, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997
electricians, engineers and other personnel. Private respondents Rules of Civil Procedure, from receipt on August 10, 1999 of
Ronaldo Lazaga and Luis Singson were employed by the NLRC-resolution dismissing the appeal which is interrupted
petitioner corporation as electricians in one of its projects. by the filing on August 20, 1999 of the Motion for
Private respondents filed a complaint against petitioners for Reconsideration; and the remaining period to be counted from
illegal dismissal and non-payment of backwages, service receipt on November 25, 1999 of the resolution denying the
incentive fees, premium pay, separation pay and other motion for reconsideration. As found by the Court of Appeals,
the petition was filed late as petitioners had fifty (50) days respondents herein. Moreover, the plea of liberality should be
remaining or until January 14, 2000 within which to file the denied as there is no reason other than neglect of counsel that
petition for certiorari. The petition for certiorari was filed only may compel this Court to treat this case as an exception to the
on January 24, 2000. rule.
In the instant petition, petitioners invoke A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, We find for the petitioners.
which took effect on September 1, 2000, specifically amending
Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC amended Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997
wherein the sixty-day period is reckoned from receipt of the Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended by the Resolution of July
resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Thus, from 21, 1998), which took effect September 1, 2000 and provides:
receipt by petitioners on November 25, 1999 of the resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration, the filing of the "SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. --- The petition shall
petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on January 24, be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
2000 would have been within the reglementary period. judgment, order or resolution.1âwphi1 In case a motion for
Petitioners argue that before a party can file a petition for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such
certiorari, a motion for reconsideration is a mandatory pleading motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be
and thus, it is logical to assume that the sixty-day period should counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
be reckoned from notice of resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration. Petitioners likewise argue that remedial laws The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates
should be construed liberally in order to give litigants ample to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
opportunity to prove their respective claims and avoid denial of board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising
substantial justice due to legal technicalities. jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or
On September 18, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
requiring respondents to comment on the petition. Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it
involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency,
Respondents filed their Comment alleging that the issue in the unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition
present petition is not whether liberality should be applied. shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
They contend that the controversy sought to be laid to rest
would multiply as similar requests for liberality, leniency and No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except
exceptions would be filed. They argue that the Labor Code for compelling reason and in no case exceeding fifteen (15)
mandates that conflicts in the interpretation of the law and the days."
rules should be resolved in favor of the working man,
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.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Systems Factors v. NLRC - Art. 4 NCC (Prohibition On Retroactivity of Laws Exception)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systems Factors v. NLRC - Art. 4 NCC (Prohibition On Retroactivity of Laws Exception)

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 Factors v. NLRC - Art. 4 NCC (Prohibition On Retroactivity of Laws Exception)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines allowances.

The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment ordering

The above conclusion is in consonance with the provision in

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed

Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

You might also like