Case Digest: SIENA REALTY CORPORATION and LILIBETH MANLUGON v. HON. LOLITA GALANG, ANITA CO NG and COURT OF APPEALS

SIENA REALTY CORPORATION and LILIBETH MANLUGON v. HON. LOLITA GALANG, ANITA CO NG and COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 145169, 13 May 2004, THIRD DIVISION

Petitioners Siena Realty Corporation and Lilibeth Manlugon (Siena) filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) concerning the Regional Trial Court of Manila‘s (RTC) Order dismissing Siena‘s complaint. Upon CA‘s dismissal of the petition, Siena filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Pending resolution of the motion, the Supreme Court issued a resolution approving the amendment to Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The said resolution provided that in case of the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration, the 60-day period “shall be counted from the denial of the said motion”. CA then dismissed Siena‘s Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that the said amendment applies to Siena‘s motion. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion for applying the amendment retroactively

HELD:

Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules on Evidence states that judicial departments are mandated to take judicial notice even without the introduction of evidence, hence, even if petitioner did not raise or allege the amendment in their motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, it should have taken mandatory judicial notice. The resolution did not have to specify that it had retroactive effect as it pertains to a procedural matter.

The amendatory rule in their favor notwithstanding, Siena‘s petition fails. At the time Siena filed before the appellate court their Petition for Certiorari on the 60th day following their receipt of the Order of RTC, the said Order had become final and executory after the 15th day following Siena‘s receipt thereof.