View full case

REPUBLIC v. CA

FACTS:

Metrobank argues that the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for a 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari reckoned from the receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, was already in effect. They claim that this amendment is not merely a procedural rule but a special law that applies to all pending and future actions and proceedings. Metrobank contends that the petitioner's reliance on A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC is misplaced because it only took effect on September 1, 2000, while the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioner's petition for certiorari was already final and executory before that. Metrobank also argues that procedural laws have retroactive effect, even if they affect vested rights, as consistently held by the Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petition for certiorari was filed out of time.

  2. Whether or not the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure should be applied retroactively in this case.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the petition for certiorari was filed out of time. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being filed out of time, as the petitioner received the order of the trial court denying its motion for reconsideration on October 12, 1998, and the petition for certiorari was filed on December 11, 1998. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provided that the petition for certiorari shall be filed within 60 days from receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the petition for certiorari was filed beyond the 60-day period.

  2. No, the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure should not be applied retroactively in this case. The Court held that procedural rules, including the rules on the period for filing a petition for certiorari, are generally given retroactive effect. However, in this case, the petitioner failed to show that the retroactive application of the amendment would result in injustice. The Court emphasized that the amendment was made to correct certain deficiencies and provide a more efficient and effective remedy. Thus, the Court upheld the dismissal of the petition for certiorari.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Procedural rules, including the rules on the period for filing a petition for certiorari, are generally given retroactive effect, unless their retroactive application would result in injustice.

  • Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that liberality should be observed in construing the Rules of Court in order to promote its objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

  • The amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be reckoned from receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, was made to correct deficiencies and provide a more efficient and effective remedy.