In Virgilio Santiago v. Bergensen D.Y. Philippines, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of procedural rules’ retroactivity, particularly concerning the period for filing a petition for certiorari. The Court ruled that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, could be applied retroactively to pending actions. This meant that the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari should be counted from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, not from the original judgment. This decision safeguards the right to appeal by ensuring that litigants are not unfairly penalized due to changes in procedural rules during the course of their case.

The Shifting Sands of Procedure: Did the Petitioner File on Time?

Virgilio Santiago filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Bergensen D.Y. Philippines. After the Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, Santiago appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the dismissal but ordered the respondent to pay P10,000 for failing to afford due process. Santiago received the NLRC Resolution on December 18, 1998, and filed a motion for reconsideration on December 28, 1998. The NLRC denied this motion on August 5, 1999, and Santiago claims he was informed of the denial on August 18, 1999. He then filed a petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on October 11, 1999. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, citing that it was filed four days late based on the prevailing rules at the time.

The core issue revolved around the correct application of procedural rules governing the timeliness of filing a petition for certiorari. At the heart of the matter was whether A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, should be applied retroactively to Santiago’s case, which was pending when the amendment came into effect. This amendment altered how the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari was calculated, specifically in cases where a motion for reconsideration had been filed. The Supreme Court had to determine if applying the new rule retroactively would prejudice any vested rights or if it would simply facilitate a more just and efficient resolution of the case.

The Court underscored the principle that procedural rules are designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and should be liberally construed. Petitioner invoked the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, amending Section 4, Rule 65, arguing that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action. The amended Section 4, Rule 65, states:

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.

However, at the time Santiago filed his petition for Certiorari before the appellate court on October 15, 1999, the governing rule was Section 4, Rule 65, as amended by the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution in Bar Matter No. 83 dated July 21, 1998, which provided:

SEC. 4. Where petition filed. – The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed xxx.

If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of such denial. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.

The Court acknowledged that the appellate court correctly dismissed the petition based on the then-prevailing rule. However, a crucial turning point arose when the appellate court resolved Santiago’s Motion for Reconsideration on May 18, 2001. By this time, Section 4, Rule 65, had already been amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC. This change in the procedural landscape became central to the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court reasoned that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, as a rule of procedure, could be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time of its passage. This retroactive application would not violate any vested rights, as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that remedial statutes or those relating to remedies or modes of procedure, do not fall under the legal conception of retroactive law. As the Court has stated, procedural laws apply retroactively to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, as long as they do not create new rights or take away vested ones.

Remedial statues 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 procedures 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.

Applying this principle, the Court determined that Santiago’s petition for certiorari was indeed filed within the reglementary period. According to the amended rule, the 60-day period should be counted from August 18, 1999, when Santiago received notice of the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration. Therefore, he had until October 17, 1999, to file his petition, which he did on October 11, 1999. This timely filing warranted the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural rules in ensuring fair and equitable justice. It also highlights the principle that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every action. The Court recognized that the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC would not prejudice any vested rights but would instead facilitate a more accurate determination of the merits of Santiago’s case.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an amendment to the Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC) regarding the period for filing a petition for certiorari should be applied retroactively to a pending case.
What did the amendment A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC change?	The amendment changed the reckoning point for the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari, specifying that it should be counted from the notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration, not from the original judgment.
What was the Court’s ruling on the retroactivity of procedural rules?	The Court ruled that procedural rules could be applied retroactively to pending actions, provided that such application does not violate any vested rights.
How did the Court apply this principle to Santiago’s case?	The Court applied the amended rule retroactively, counting the 60-day period from the date Santiago received notice of the denial of his motion for reconsideration, which made his petition timely.
Why did the Court of Appeals initially dismiss Santiago’s petition?	The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because, under the rules prevailing at the time of filing, Santiago’s petition was filed four days late.
Did the Supreme Court find that Santiago’s petition was actually filed on time?	Yes, the Supreme Court found that when applying the amended rule retroactively, Santiago’s petition was indeed filed within the reglementary period.
What is the effect of this ruling on future cases?	This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rules are designed to facilitate justice and should be liberally construed, potentially impacting how timelines for appeals are calculated in pending cases.
What was the final outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals’ resolutions, and remanded the case to the appellate court for appropriate action.

This case serves as a reminder of the dynamic nature of procedural rules and their impact on the outcome of legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of adapting to changes in procedural rules to ensure the timely and effective pursuit of legal remedies.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Virgilio Santiago v. Bergensen D.Y. Philippines, G.R. No. 148333, November 17, 2004