The latest amendments took effect on September 1, 2000, following its publication in the Manila Bulletin on August 4, 2000 and in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 7, 2000, two newspapers of general circulation.   In view of its purpose, the Resolution further amending Section 4, Rule 65 can only be described as curative in nature, and the principles governing curative statutes are applicable.   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.   Accordingly, while the Resolution states that the same shall take effect on September 1, 2000, following its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation, its retroactive application cannot be denied. In short, the filing of the petition for certiorari in this Court on 17 December 1998 is deemed to be timely, the same having been made within the 60-day period provided under the curative Resolution. We reach this conclusion bearing in mind that the substantive aspects of this case involves the rights and benefits, even the livelihood, of petitioneremployees.[11](Citations omitted)     In view of the application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, Romeros petition before the Court of Appeals was filed on time.   Considering that the issues on whether HHBC illegally dismissed Romero and whether CBM was responsible for Romeros foreign employment are factual in nature, there is a need to remand this case to the Court of Appeals for proper determination of these issues.   WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Resolutions of 29 October 1999 and 6 March 2000. We REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action.