Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JUANITA NARZOLES v. NLRC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 161107 2013-03-12	MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO v. ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE MENDOZA, J.
"Curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legal proceedings which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain legal requirements. They are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities and curb certain evils. They are intended to enable persons to carry into effect that which they have designed or intended, but has failed of expected legal consequence by reason of some statutory disability or irregularity in their own action. They make valid that which, before the enactment of the statute was invalid. Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with. Curative statutes, therefore, by their very essence, are retroactive."[41]
	GR No. 152101 2009-09-08	EMCOR INCORPORATED v. MA. LOURDES D. SIENES PERALTA, J.
In Narzoles v. NLRC,[14] the rationale for the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC was stated in this wise, thus: The Court has observed that Circular No. 39-98 has generated tremendous confusion resulting in the dismissal of numerous cases for late filing. This may have been because, historically, i.e., even before the 1997 revision to the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party had a fresh period from receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari. Were it not for the amendments brought about by Circular No. 39-98, the cases so dismissed would have been resolved on the merits. Hence, the Court deemed it wise to revert to the old rule allowing a party a fresh 60-day period from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration to file a petition for certiorari. Earlier this year, the Court resolved, in A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, to further amend Section 4, Rule 65 to read as follows:
	GR NO. 141805 2005-08-08	GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[37] G.R. No. 141959, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 533.
	GR NO. 147417 2005-08-08	SPS. VICTOR AND MILAGROS PEREZ AND CRISTINA AGRAVIADOR AVISO v. ANTONIO HERMANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
However, on 01 September 2000, during the pendency of the case before the Court of Appeals, Section 4 was amended anew by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC[6] which now provides:Sec. 4. When and 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 notice of the denial of said motion.
	GR No. 141805 2005-07-08	GENEVIEVE C. POBRE v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
the petition filed before the CA should now be considered as timely filed. In PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Emily Rose Go Ko,[36] the Court, citing Narzoles vs. NLRC,[37] ruled that A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, being a curative statute should be retroactively applied.
	GR No. 147417 2005-07-08	SPS. VICTOR AND MILAGROS PEREZ AND CRISTINA AGRAVIADOR AVISO v. ANTONIO HERMANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
However, on 01 September 2000, during the pendency of the case before the Court of Appeals, Section 4 was amended anew by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC[6] which now provides:Sec. 4. When and 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 notice of the denial of said motion.