ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145463.February 19, 2001]

MAREJED MARITIME INC., et al. vs. CA, NLRC et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 19 2001.

G.R. No. 145463(Marejed Maritime, Inc. and Sea Star Management S.A. vs. Court of Appeals, National Labor Relations Commission and Ricardo Mendoza.)

This is a motion for reconsideration of the resolution denying petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari. On November 6, 2000, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated June 19, 2000 and October 17, 2000, dismissing their petition for certiorari and denying reconsideration thereof.

In its resolution of November 27, 2000, the Court denied the motion for extension on the ground that it failed to state the date of receipt of the resolution, dated June 19, 2000, of the Court of Appeals and the date of the filing of the motion for reconsideration of petitioner as required by Rule 45, ��2 and 4 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 6, 2000, petitioners filed their petition for review, but the same was denied on January 15, 2001 in view of the denial of petitioners' motion for extension to file petition for review.

The Court finds that petitioners indeed attached to their motion for extension an affidavit stating the material dates from which it appears that the motion for extension was filed on time. For this reason, petitioners' motion for reconsideration is GRANTED and the petition for review filed on December 6, 2000 is REINSTATED.

After considering the merits of the petition, however, the Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in dismissing petitioners' petition for certiorari and, therefore, RESOLVED to DENY the instant petition. It appears that petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals to set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. Their petition was dismissed based on the following facts:

Petitioners, as respondents in NLRC NCR OCW Case No. 97-09-4196, received a copy of the decision of the NLRC on December 6, 1999. They filed a motion for reconsideration on December 16, 1999, i.e., after consuming 10 days of the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, �4. Petitioners' motion was denied and a copy of the resolution of the NLRC denying their motion was served on them on April 10, 2000. As they had already consumed ten (10) days of their appeal period, petitioners had only fifty (50) days left within which to file a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. This period expired on May 30, 2000. However, petitioners filed their petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals only on May 31, 2000. Hence, the appeals court did not err in dismissing their petition for having been filed late.

Pursuant to Rule 65, �4 as amended by SC Circular 39-98 (effective September 1, 1998), if petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration after the receipt of the notice of the assailed judgment, order, or resolution, the fixed period of 60 days shall be interrupted and, if such motion for reconsideration is denied, the petitioner may file the petition for certiorari within the remaining period. Although Rule 65, �4 was further amended by Circular A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, effective September 1, 2000, by providing that the 60-day appeal period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the motion of reconsideration, the new provision could not have been applied for the reason that the latest amendment took effect much later than the filing of petitioners' petition for certiorari. Indeed, that Circular A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC took effect during the pendency of petitioners' motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals does not detract from the fact that at the time they filed their petition, the prevailing rule for the computation of the 60-day period is that which is provided in Circular 39-98. The latest amendment by Circular A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC cannot be given retroactive application (La Campana Development Corp. v. Tijam, (res), G.R. No. 145183, Dec. 6, 2000).

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE