Certiorari 60-Day Period Counted From Denial of Reconsideration

The Supreme Court has settled a recurring procedural question: when exactly does the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari begin? In Medina Investigation & Security Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 144074, March 20, 2001), the Court ruled that the period is counted from receipt of the resolution denying a motion for reconsideration, not from receipt of the original order. The ruling also affirmed that procedural amendments apply to pending cases.

The Facts of the Case

Romeo Taburnal, a security guard assigned to Abenson, Inc., was dismissed in 1997 after his client requested his relief due to alleged violations of the service contract. Taburnal filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims. On April 29, 1999, the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor and ordered reinstatement with backwages.

The employer, Medina Investigation & Security Corporation, appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the employer's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. The employer then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

The Procedural Dispute

The employer received the NLRC order on November 10, 1999, and filed a motion for reconsideration on November 19, 1999. The NLRC denied that motion, and the employer received the denial on April 3, 2000. The petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals on May 31, 2000.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright, ruling that it was filed on the 67th day. The appellate court counted the 60-day period from the receipt of the original NLRC order on November 10, 1999, rather than from the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' dismissal. The Court applied A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which amended the rules on the period for filing a petition for certiorari. Under the amended rule, the 60-day period is counted from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration, if one was timely filed.

Although the amendment took effect on September 1, 2000—after the petition was filed—the Court ruled that procedural rules apply retroactively to pending cases. Citing earlier cases, the Court explained that procedural laws do not create or take away vested rights. They merely operate in furtherance of remedies and do not violate any person's rights when applied retroactively.

The Court emphasized that no vested right attaches to procedural laws. It also noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure should be liberally construed to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings on the merits.

Why This Matters

This ruling provides clarity for litigants and practitioners. When a motion for reconsideration is filed, the 60-day period for certiorari does not run from the original adverse order. Instead, it starts anew upon receipt of the denial of the motion. This prevents premature filings and gives parties adequate time to prepare their petitions.

The case also underscores that procedural amendments apply to pending actions. Parties cannot rely on older rules to avoid the effect of new procedural guidelines, provided those guidelines are remedial in nature.

Practical Takeaways

• Count from the denial, not the original order. When a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, the 60-day period for certiorari runs from receipt of the denial, not from the original order or resolution.
• Procedural rules apply retroactively. Amendments to procedural rules generally apply to pending cases, as no vested right attaches to procedural laws.
• File promptly after denial. Even with the clarified reckoning, do not delay. The 60-day period is strict, and extensions are granted only for compelling reasons and never exceed 15 days.
• Verify the applicable version of the rules. Always check whether the rules have been amended before computing deadlines, especially in labor and quasi-judicial cases.
• Seek early clarification on jurisdictional issues. In this case, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, which triggered the certiorari route. Knowing the correct remedy at each stage prevents costly procedural detours.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.