MEDINA INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY CORP (Medina) vs CA (technically, beyond naman talaga.

(technically, beyond naman talaga. Nagfile kasi sa 67th day imbis na dapat within 60 days
MARCH 20, 2001
FACTS:
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 th 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 67th 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.
Hence, this petition.
lang. Tama ba na hindi tinanggap ng CA yung petiton kahit medyo lampas ng 60 days yung
pagkakafile)
HELD:
NO.
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. 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 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 proceedings.

1. 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 58th day.
2. 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.

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