ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140716. October 16, 2000]

PLDT vs. HEIRS OF THE LATE ROMEO F. BOLSO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 16 2000.

G.R. No. 140716 (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Heirs of the late Romeo F. Bolso. )

This case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Romeo Bolso against petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company on August 15, 1997. On August 6, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter and ordered the reinstatement of Bolso. Petitioner received a copy of the decision of the NLRC on April 16, 1999. On April 26, 1999, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the NLRC. On May 24, 1999, petitioners received the resolution of the NLRC denying their motion for reconsideration. They filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on July 23, 1999. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the petition for certiorari for late filing. It held:

"According to the petitioner, it received, through counsel, the assailed NLRC dated March 26, 1999 on April 16, 1999. Ten (10) days later, or, on April 26, 1999, it submitted a Motion for Reconsideration thereby leaving it with only fifty (50) days to institute a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1999 (sic) Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner received the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration on May 24, 1999. Sixty (60) days thereafter, or on July 23, 1999, the instant petition was filed. Unfortunately it was already ten (10) days beyond the reglementary period. xxx.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Court of Appeals.

On December 28, 1999, petitioners filed with this Court the instant petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its petition for certiorari and denying its motion for reconsideration. Petitioner asserts that the sixty-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must be counted from the date of receipt of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Hence, it argues that the petition was timely filed.

At the time of the filing of the petition to the Court of Appeals, the prevailing rule was that the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari is counted from the date of receipt of the main decision of the lower tribunal. The running of the period is, however, tolled upon filing of a motion for reconsideration or new trial. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court then read:

"Sec. 4. Where and when petition to be filed.-The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. 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. xxx"

However, on August 1, 2000, the Court En Banc passed a resolution amending Section 4 of Rule 65. The present rule states:

"Sec. 4. When an 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 the notice of the denial of said motion.

xxx"

The amendment took effect on September 1, 2000.

As rules of procedure in the courts apply to actions pending and are still undetermined at the time of their passage, we apply the amendment to Section 4 Rule 65 to the instant case. Following the present rule, we find the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals timely.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE