reconsideration therefrom.

The NLRC-
UNITY FISHING resolution denying petitioners motion for
DEVELOPMENT CORP. reconsideration was received by petitioners
and/or ANTONIO on October 6, 1999. Thus, on December 6,
DEE, petitioners, vs. COURT 1999, petitioners filed, by registered mail, a
OF APPEALS, NATIONAL petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals. In its Resolution dated January 31,
LABOR RELATIONS 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
COMMISSION and petition for having been filed eleven (11)
DOMINADOR days past its due date. The Court of Appeals
LAGUIN, respondents. did not rule on the merits of the case. The
motion for reconsideration was likewise
RESOLUTION denied in the Resolution dated July 12,
2000, which resolution was received by
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: petitioners on August 1, 2000.[1]
The present petition arose from the Hence, the present petition
Resolution dated January 31, 2000 issued by for certiorari. Petitioners invoke the recent
the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 where the
for certiorari for being out of time. A period of sixty (60) days is reckoned from
Motion for Reconsideration thereto was receipt of the order denying the motion for
likewise denied in the Resolution of July 12, reconsideration. Petitioners argue that this
2000. The Court of Appeals applied the amendment must be applied retroactively.
earlier amendment which considered only In the instant petition, petitioners
the remaining period from receipt of the invoke A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took
order denying the motion for reconsideration effect on September 1, 2000, particularly
in reckoning the reglementary period to file amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997
the petition. Rules of Civil Procedure wherein the sixty-
It appears that a complaint for illegal day (60) period is reckoned from receipt of
dismissal, underpayment of wages, overtime the resolution denying the motion for
pay, premium pay for holidays and rest reconsideration. Thus, applying said
days, 13th month pay, service incentive leave amendment, considering that petitioners
pay, separation pay and for moral damages received on October 6, 1999 the resolution
was filed by respondent Dominador Laguin denying the motion for reconsideration, the
against petitioners Unity Fishing filing of the petition for certiorari with the
Development Corporation and/or Antonio Court of Appeals on December 6, 1999
Dee before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor would have been within the reglementary
Arbiter rendered judgment on August 3, period.
1998 declaring the dismissal of respondent Petitioners argue that the new rule gives
as illegal and ordering herein petitioners to a party whose motion for reconsideration
pay the former backwages, separation pay has been denied a fresh 60-day period to file
and salary differential. Respondents other a petition for certiorari. This rule, according
claims were dismissed, for lack of merit. On to petitioners, must apply
appeal, the National Labor Relations retroactively. Petitioners further allege that
Commission (NLRC) affirmed the the Court of Appeals Resolution dated July
judgment. Petitioners filed a motion for 12, 2000 denying their motion for
reconsideration was received on August 1, agency, unless otherwise provided by
2000 but the present petition was filed with law or these rules, the petition shall be
this Court on October 2, 2000, because filed in and cognizable only by the
September 29, 2000, although the 60th day, is
Court of Appeals.
a Saturday.
On November 20, 2000, this Court No extension of time to file the petition
issued a Resolution requiring respondents to shall be granted except for compelling
comment on the petition. reason and in no case exceeding fifteen
Respondent Dominador Laguin filed his (15) days.
Comment alleging that the amendment in
Section 4, Rule 65 took effect on September As we have ruled in the case
1, 2000 and thus cannot be applied of Systems Factors Corporation and
retroactively. Modesto Dean vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
143789 (promulgated on November 27,
A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC amending
2000), the amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-
Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
03-SC wherein the sixty-day period to file a
Civil Procedure (as amended by the
petition for certiorari is reckoned from
Resolution of July 21, 1998) took effect on
receipt of the resolution denying the motion
September 1, 2000 and provides, to wit:
for reconsideration should be deemed
applicable. We reiterate that remedial
SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. statutes or statutes relating to remedies or
--- The petition shall be filed not later modes of procedure, which do not create
than sixty (60) days from notice of the new or take away vested rights, but only
judgment, order or resolution. In case a operate in furtherance of the remedy or
motion for reconsideration or new confirmation of rights already existing, do
trial is timely filed, whether such not come within the legal conception of a
retroactive law, or the general rule against
motion is required or not, the sixty
retroactive operation of statutes.[2] Statutes
(60) day period shall be counted from regulating the procedure of the courts will
notice of the denial of said motion. be construed as applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of
The petition shall be filed in the their passage. Procedural laws are
Supreme Court or, if it relates to the retroactive in that sense and to that
acts or omissions of a lower court or of extent. The retroactive application of
a corporation, board, officer or person, procedural laws is not violative of any right
in the Regional Trial Court exercising of a person who may feel that he is
jurisdiction over the territorial area as adversely affected.[3] The reason is that as a
general rule, no vested right may attach to
defined by the Supreme Court. It may nor arise from procedural laws.[4]
also be filed in the Court of Appeals
whether or not the same is in aid of its The above conclusion is consonant with
appellate jurisdiction, or in the the provision in Section 6, Rule 1 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that (T)hese
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its Rules shall be liberally construed in order to
appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the promote their objective of securing a just,
acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice
action and proceeding. of denial.
As alleged in the petition, the NLRC- FACTS:
Resolution denying their motion for
reconsideration was received by petitioners
The following material antecedents:
on October 6, 1999 and the petition
for certiorari was filed on December 6,
a. February 1, 2008 The COMELEC
1999, a Monday.[5] Applying the amendment
to Section 4, Rule 65, the last day for filing First Division issued its Resolution
the petition for certiorari should have been (assailed in the petition);
December 5, 1999. December 5 being a
Sunday, the time shall not run until the next b. February 4, 2008 The counsel
working day pursuant to Rule 22.[6] Hence, for petitioner Nilo T. Pates
when petitioners filed with the Court of (petitioner) received a copy of the
Appeals the petition for certiorari on February 1, 2008 Resolution;
December 6, 1999, the same was still within
the reglementary period. c. February 8, 2008 The petitioner
filed his motion for reconsideration
WHEREFORE, the assailed
Resolutions dated January 31, 2000 and July (MR) of the February 1, 2008
12, 2000 are hereby SET ASIDE and the Resolution (4 days from receipt of
case is REMANDED to the Court of the February 1, 2008 Resolution)
Appeals for further proceedings.
d. September 18, 2008 The
SO ORDERED. COMELEC en banc issued a
Resolution denying the petitioners
MR (also assailed in the petition).
PATES v. COMELEC, GR. No. 184915, June
30, 2009 e. September 22, 2008 The
petitioner received the COMELEC en
Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court banc Resolution of September 18,
which provides: 2008

SEC. 3. Time to file petition.The petition

shall be filed within thirty (30) days from Petitioner filed his petition for certiorari on
notice of the judgment or final order or the final COMELEC Resolution on October
resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing 22, 2008 or two days late which must be
of a motion for new trial or reconsideration filed 30 days from such notice however it
of said judgment or final order or fell on a Saturday (October 18, 2008), as the
resolution, if allowed under the procedural petitioner only had the remaining period of
rules of the Commission concerned, shall 26 days to file his petition, after using up 4
interrupt the period herein fixed. If the days in preparing and filing his Motion for
motion is denied, the aggrieved party may Reconsideration. His petition was
file the petition within the remaining dismissed. He insists that the fresh period
period, but which shall not be less than five rule applicable to a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 should likewise apply to reconsideration deductible from the
petitions for certiorari of COMELEC rulings originally-granted 30 days (instead of the
filed under Rule 64. He asks for Urgent fresh period of 60 days that Rule 65
Motion for Reconsideration. provides).

ISSUE: Whether or not the motion for Significantly, the petitioner presented no
reconsideration should be granted. exceptional circumstance or any compelling
reason to warrant the non-application of
RULING: Section 3, Rule 64 to his petition. He failed
to explain why his filing was late. Other
As a Matter of Law than his appeal to history, uniformity, and
convenience, he did not explain why we
No. Section 7, Article IX-A of the should adopt and apply the fresh period
Constitution provides that unless otherwise rule to an election case.
provided by the Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each As a Matter of Policy
Commission may be brought to the Court
on certiorari by the aggrieved party within The reason, as made clear above, is
30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For constitutionally-based and is no less than
this reason, the Rules of Court provide for a the importance our Constitution accords to
separate rule (Rule 64) specifically the prompt determination of election
applicable only to decisions of the results. This reason far outweighs
COMELEC and the Commission on convenience and uniformity.
Audit. This Rule expressly refers to the
application of Rule 65 in the filing of a Our Liberal Approach
petition for certiorari, subject to the
exception clause except as hereinafter Largely for the same reason and as
provided. Rule 64, however, cannot simply discussed below, we are not inclined to
be equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly suspend the rules to come to the rescue of
refers to the latter rule. a litigant whose counsel has blundered by
reading the wrong applicable provision. The
Rule 64, however, cannot simply be Rules of Court are with us for the prompt
equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly and orderly administration of justice;
refers to the latter rule. Procedurally, the litigants cannot, after resorting to a wrong
most patent difference between the two remedy, simply cry for the liberal
i.e., the exception that Section 2, Rule 64 construction of these rules.
refers to is Section 3 which provides for a
special period for the filing of petitions We add that even for this Court, liberality
for certiorari from decisions or rulings of does not signify an unbridled exercise of
the COMELEC en banc. The period is 30 discretion. It has its limits; to serve its
days from notice of the decision or ruling purpose and to preserve its true worth, it
(instead of the 60 days that Rule 65 must be exercised only in the most
provides), with the intervening period used appropriate cases.
for the filing of any motion for