G.R. No. L-38096 - Uy vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission

Siena Realty Corporation, represented by Lydia Co Hao and Lilibeth Manlugon, filed a complaint which was eventually dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 44, on motion of private respondent Anita Co Ng in trust for Rockefeller Ng.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s dismissal order which was denied in the March 23, 2000 Order.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 7, 2000, allegedly within 60 days from receipt of the March 23, 2000 Order denying their motion for reconsideration.

The CA dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari on June 20, 2000, for being filed out of time, holding that:

Petitioners had until May 29, 2000 to file the petition, computed from their receipt of the October 20, 1999 Order denying their counsel’s Notice of Withdrawal and their own Motion for Reconsideration on the dismissal of their complaint.
Petitioners received the March 23, 2000 Order denying reconsideration only on April 8, 2000. Thus, their June 7, 2000 filing was 9 days late.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA’s June 20, 2000 resolution on July 10, 2000.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (dated August 1, 2000), amending Section 4, Rule 65, of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the period to file petitions for certiorari, effective September 1, 2000. The amendment clarified, among others, that:

The 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari runs from the notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial if one is filed.
No extension exceeding 15 days may be granted except for compelling reasons.

The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by a Resolution dated September 13, 2000, reasoning that:

The 60-day period to file the petition for certiorari is counted from the receipt of the questioned order or decision, and that this period is interrupted if a motion for reconsideration is filed, but not restarted from the denial of that motion.
Petitioners’ petition for certiorari was thus still late and must be denied.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s September 13, 2000 Resolution for grave abuse of discretion, arguing that the CA failed to take judicial notice of the new Rule 65 amendment under A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which should have applied retroactively.
Petitioners contended that the retroactive application of the amended Rule 65 would render their petition timely filed.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition for certiorari as filed out of time without taking judicial notice of the Supreme Court Resolution amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure effective September 1, 2000.

Whether the amended provision of Section 4, Rule 65 applies retroactively to the pending motion for reconsideration and affects the computation of the period to file the petition for certiorari.

Whether the order of the trial court dismissing petitioners’ complaint is appealable or petitionable by certiorari.