CASE DIGEST: PFIZER INC., ET AL. vs. GALAN. G.R. No. 143389. May 25, 2001

Technical Rules Not Binding

FACTS:

Respondent was a medical representative of Pfizer and later on promoted as district manager for Mindanao. However, he was dismissed by Pfizer for a cause which was the loss of trust and confidence after the conclusion of a hearing for his alleged unauthorized use of and questionable expense claims made on the company vehicle, as well as the doubtful liquidation of his cash advance for his trip in Indonesia. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner. The Labor Arbiter favors the respondent. In NLRC, the decision of LA is affirmed and the motion for reconsideration of Petitioner is denied. In CA, the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner was dismissed relying on the reglementary period of sixty day from the receipt of the copy of Resolution of NLRC affirming LA's decision and not on the period from which the petitioners received the copy of resolution denying its motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA is correct in dismissing the case by strictly applying the rules of procedure and not considering the retroactive effect of a previous amendment.

RULING:

No, the court declared that the amendment introduced under AM No. 00-2-03-SC is procedural or remedial in character, as it does not create new or remove vested rights, but only separates in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. It is settled that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure. Thus the said amendment may be given a retroactive effect.

Thus, by virtue of the retroactive effect of the amendment of Sec. 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure introduced by our Resolution in AM No. 00-2-03-SC which allows the filing of a petition for certiorari within 60 days from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, the filing of petitioner's petition before the CA was on time. Indeed, there is no dispute that their petition was filed on the sixtieth day from notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration.