G.R. No. 145169 - SIENA REALTY CORPORATION, AS REPRESENTED BY LYDIA CO HAO AND LILIBETH MANLUGON, VS. HON. LOLITA GAL-LANG, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC OF MANILA, BRANCH 44; ANITA CO NG IN TRUST FOR ROCKEFELLER NG; AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL 13TH DIVISION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-L

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for reason above-stated, the instant motion is DENIED. Consequently, the present Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED with finality. (Underscoring supplied) Hence, the petition at bar, petitioners challenging the September 13, 2000 Resolution of the appellant court as having been . . . ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AS IT WAS MADE WITHOUT TAKING PRIOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SUPREME COURT A.M. NO. 00-2 - 03 SC WHICH RESOLUTION TOOK EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2000, AND WHICH AMENDED THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 4, RULE 65 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. [4] (Underscoring supplied) Petitioners argument is well-taken. Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules on Evidence reads: SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Even if petitioner did not raise or allege the amendment in their motion for reconsideration before it, the Court of Appeals should have taken mandatory judicial notice of this Courts resolution in A.M. Matter No. 00-02-03 SC. The resolution did not have to specify that it had retroactive effect as it pertains to a procedural matter. Contrary to private respondents allegation that the matter was no longer pending and undetermined, the issue of whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed was still pending reconsideration when the amendment took effect on September 1, 2000, hence, covered by the its retroactive application. The amendatory rule in their favor notwithstanding, petitioners petition fails as stated early on. The order of the trial court granting private respondents Motion to Dismiss the complaint was a final , not interlocutory, order and as such, it was subject to appeal, [5] not a petition for certiorari. At the time petitioners filed before the appellate court their petition for certiorari on the 60th day following their receipt of the October 20, 1999 Order of the trial court denying their Motion for Reconsideration of its dismissal order, the said October 20, 1999 Order had become final and executory after the 15th day following petitioners receipt thereof. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED.