8/1/24, 2:24 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 346

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 27, 2000 149

Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC
*

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.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Statutes; Statutes regulating

the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.—
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.
Statutes regulating 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. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may
attach to nor arise from procedural laws.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolution of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

De Guzman & Venturanza for petitioners.
Gregorio Fabros for respondents.

RESOLUTION

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/000001910a08b8aebe64e554000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/6
8/1/24, 2:24 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 346

The instant petition seeks to set aside the Resolution dated

February 15, 2000 dismissing the petition for certiorari and
the Reso-

________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

150

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC

lution 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 Court’s 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
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/000001910a08b8aebe64e554000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/6
8/1/24, 2:24 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 346

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

151

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 27, 2000 151

Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC

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
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/000001910a08b8aebe64e554000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/6
8/1/24, 2:24 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 346

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:

152

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC

“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. 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 quasi-judicial 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 the1
general rule against retroactive operation of statutes.
Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/000001910a08b8aebe64e554000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/6
8/1/24, 2:24 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 346

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 right2 of a person who may feel that he is adversely
affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no 3 vested

right may attach to nor arise from procedural laws.

________________

1 Castro vs. Sagales, 94 Phil. 208.

2 Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 229 (1969); Tinio vs. Mina, 26
SCRA 512 (1969).
3 Billones vs. CIR, 14 SCRA 674 (1965).

153

VOL. 346, NOVEMBER 28, 2000 153

Magat vs. Pimentel

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.

Petition granted, resolution set aside. Case remanded to

Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Note.—Republic Act No. 6715 is in the nature of a

curative statute and as such can be applied retroactively to
pending cases. (Silva vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 274 SCRA 159 [1997])

——o0o——

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/000001910a08b8aebe64e554000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/6
8/1/24, 2:24 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 346

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/000001910a08b8aebe64e554000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/6