You are on page 1of 1


MARCH 20, 2001
1. Respondent Tarbunal was hired by the petitioner corporation as security
guard on Sept 1996 and was assigned to one of its clients.
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 in the company.
3. Tarbunal filed a complaint for illegal dismissal claiming for separation pay,
non-payment of legal/special holiday and overtime pay, underpayment of
13 month pay and cash bond and 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.
5. Medina appealed to the NLRC which dismissed the same for lack of
jurisdiction. MR was also denied.
6. Medina filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which dismissed the
petition outright for having been filed beyond the 60-day reglementary
period or on them 67 day per its resolution on June 2, 2000.
- CA ruled in this manner since Medina received on Nov 10, 1999 the
Order dated August 26, 1999 of the NLRC and the MR was filed on
Nov 19, 1999.
- Copy of the said order was received by Medina on April 3, 200 while
the petition was filed with the CA on May 31, 2000.
- CA did not discuss the merits of the petition.

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

(technically, beyond naman talaga. Nagfile kasi sa 67 day imbis na dapat
within 60 days lang. Tama ba na hindi tinanggap ng CA yung petiton kahit
medyo lampas ng 60 days yung pagkakafile)
The above conclusion is consonant 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."

Contrary to the position of respondents that such amendment should not
apply in this case, the Court ruled that the amendment under A.M. No. 002-03-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 statues 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, but, will be
applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage like in the case at bar.

The resolutions dated June 2, 2000 which dismissed the petition for
certiorari is set aside and the case is remanded back to CA for further

Hence, this petition.


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 58 day.
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.