Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Case 2 de Roy V CA

    Uploaded by

    yeli
    1) The petitioners' burned-out building collapsed and destroyed the private respondents' tailoring shop, resulting in injuries and a death. 2) The private respondents were warned about the weakened wall but failed to vacate the shop. 3) The petitioners filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Supreme Court upheld this denial, referring to a previous ruling that strictly enforces the 15-day period to file an appeal or reconsideration motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 2 de Roy V CA

    Uploaded by

    yeli
    9 views2 pages
    1) The petitioners' burned-out building collapsed and destroyed the private respondents' tailoring shop, resulting in injuries and a death. 2) The private respondents were warned about the weakened wall but failed to vacate the shop. 3) The petitioners filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Supreme Court upheld this denial, referring to a previous ruling that strictly enforces the 15-day period to file an appeal or reconsideration motion.

    Original Title

    Case 2 De Roy V CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioners' burned-out building collapsed and destroyed the private respondents' tailoring shop, resulting in injuries and a death. 2) The private respondents were warned about the weakened wall but failed to vacate the shop. 3) The petitioners filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Supreme Court upheld this denial, referring to a previous ruling that strictly enforces the 15-day period to file an appeal or reconsideration motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views2 pages

    Case 2 de Roy V CA

    Uploaded by

    yeli
    1) The petitioners' burned-out building collapsed and destroyed the private respondents' tailoring shop, resulting in injuries and a death. 2) The private respondents were warned about the weakened wall but failed to vacate the shop. 3) The petitioners filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The Supreme Court upheld this denial, referring to a previous ruling that strictly enforces the 15-day period to file an appeal or reconsideration motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    De Roy V CA

    G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988

    Facts:

     The petitioners' burned-out building had a collapsed firewall, which destroyed the tailoring shop
    of the private respondents, resulting in injuries and the death of Marissa Bernal.

     Private respondents were warned by petitioners to vacate their shop due to the weakened wall,
    but they failed to do so.

     The Regional Trial Court found petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages to
    private respondents.

     The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, and petitioners received notice on
    August 25, 1987.

     On September 9, 1987, the last day for appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time
    to file a motion for reconsideration, which was eventually denied.

    Issue:

    WON CA commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a
    motion for reconsideration?

    Supreme Court's Ruling: No.

    Explanation: The Supreme Court, in its ruling, upheld the denial of petitioners' motion for extension of
    time. The Court referred to the rule established in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, which strictly
    enforced that the fifteen-day period for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be
    extended. The Court clarified that, beginning one month after the promulgation of a certain Resolution,
    the rule is strictly enforced, and no motion for extension can be filed except with the Supreme Court as
    the court of last resort.

    The Court also pointed out the prospective application of this rule, including a one-month grace period
    from the promulgation of the clarificatory Habaluyas case, during which the rule barring extensions was
    not strictly enforceable. However, in this case, the petitioners' motion for extension was filed on
    September 9, 1987, more than a year after the grace period had expired on June 30, 1986. Therefore, it
    was outside the coverage of the grace period, and the Court rejected the argument that the petitioners'
    counsel was ignorant of the rule.

    Additionally, the Court dismissed the argument that the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in
    the Official Gazette made the rule inapplicable. The Court emphasized that there is no law requiring
    the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette for them to be binding.

    Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision holding the petitioners liable under
    Article 2190 of the Civil Code, which states that the proprietor of a building is responsible for damage
    resulting from its collapse due to the lack of necessary repairs. The Court rejected the argument that the
    private respondents had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident, stating that this doctrine, applied
    to vehicular accidents, was inapplicable to the case.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming the decisions of the
    lower courts and upholding the denial of the motion for extension of time.

    You might also like