de Roy Vs CA

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 80718. January 29, 1988.]
FELISA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS , petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS BERNAL, SR., GLENIA BERNAL,
LUIS BERNAL, JR., HEIRS OF MARISSA BERNAL, namely,
GLICERIA DELA CRUZ BERNAL and LUIS BERNAL, SR.,
respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; PERIOD FOR APPEALING

OR FOR FILING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, NON-EXTENDIBLE. — The
rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, [G.R. No. 70895,
August 5, 1985, 138 SCRA 46], that the fifteen-day period for appealing or
for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; GRACE PERIOD IN BOCAVA CASE, INAPPLICABLE TO THE
CASE AT BAR. — The one-month grace period from the promulgation on May
30, 1986 of the Court's Resolution in the clarificatory Habaluyas case, or up
to June 30, 1986, within which the rule barring extensions of time to file
motions for new trial or reconsideration may still be allowed cannot be
invoked by the petitioners as their motion for extension of time was filed on
September 9, 1987, more than a year after the grace period on June 30,
1986.
RESOLUTION
CORTES, J : p
This special civil action for certiorari seeks to declare null and void two
(2) resolutions of the Special Division of the Court of Appeals in the Luis
Bernal, Sr., et al. v. Felisa Perdosa De Roy, et al., CA-G.R. CV No. 07286. The
first resolution promulgated on 30 September 1987 denied petitioner's
motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and directed
entry of judgment since the decision in said case had become final; and the
second Resolution dated 27 October 1987 denied petitioners' motion for
reconsideration for having been filed out of time.
At the outset, this Court could have denied the petition outright for not
being verified as required by Rule 65 section 1 of the Rules of Court.
However, even if the instant petition did not suffer from this defect, this
Court, on procedural and substantive grounds, would still resolve to deny it.
The facts of the case are undisputed. The firewall of a burned out
building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com
occupied by the family of private respondents, resulting in injuries to private
respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private
respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of
its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do so. On the
basis of the foregoing facts, the Regional Trial Court. First Judicial Region,
Branch XXXVIII, presided by the Hon. Antonio M. Belen, rendered judgment
finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarding damages to
private respondents. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed
in toto by the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on August 17,
1987, a copy of which was received by petitioners on August 25, 1987. On
September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day period to file an appeal,
petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the appellate court in the
Resolution of September 30, 1987. Petitioners filed their motion for
reconsideration on September 24, 1987 but this was denied in the
Resolution of October 27, 1987.
This Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit a grave
abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motion for extension of time
to file a motion for reconsideration, directed entry of judgment and denied
their motion for reconsideration. It correctly applied the rule laid down in
Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, [G.R. No. 70895, August 5, 1985, 138
SCRA 46], that the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for
reconsideration cannot be extended. In its Resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration, promulgated on May 30, 1986 (142 SCRA 208), this Court
en banc restated and clarified the rule, to wit:
Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution,
the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time
to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan
or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the
Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed only in
cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort,
which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension
requested. (at p. 212)
Lacsamana v. Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate
Appellate Court, [G.R. No. 73146-53, August 26, 1986, 143 SCRA 643],
reiterated the rule and went further to restate and clarify the modes and
periods of appeal.
Bacaya v. Intermediate Appellate Court, [G.R. No. 74824, Sept. 16,
1985, 144 SCRA 161], stressed the prospective application of said rule, and
explained the operation of the grace period, to wit: LibLex
In other words, there is one-month grace period from the

promulgation on May 30, 1986 of the Court's Resolution in the
clarificatory Habaluyas case, or up to June 30, 1986, within which the
rule barring extensions of time to file motions for new trial or
reconsideration is, as yet, not strictly enforceable.
Since petitioners herein filed their motion for extension on
February 27, 1986, it is still within the grace period, which expired on
June 30, 1986, and may still be allowed.
This grace period was also applied in Mission v. Intermediate Appellate Court
[G.R. No. 73669, October 28, 1986, 145 SCRA 306].
In the instant case, however, petitioners' motion for extension of time
was filed on September 9, 1987, more than a year after the expiration of the
grace period on June 30, 1986. Hence, it is no longer within the coverage of
the grace period. Considering the length of time from the expiration of the
grace period to the promulgation of the decision of the Court of Appeals on
August 25, 1987, petitioners cannot seek refuge in the ignorance of their
counsel regarding said rule for their failure to file a motion for
reconsideration within the reglementary period. prLL
Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case

should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication
of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette as of the time the subject
decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated. Contrary to petitioners'
view, there is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in
the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their
becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law
practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly
where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in
the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G.R.s) and in such
publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law
journals.
This Court likewise finds that the Court of Appeals committed no grave
abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's decision holding petitioner
liable under Article 2190 of the Civil Code, which provides that "the
proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damage resulting
from its total or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary
repairs."
Nor was there error in rejecting petitioners argument that private
respondents had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident if only they
heeded the warning to vacate the tailoring shop and, therefore, petitioners
prior negligence should be disregarded, since the doctrine of "last clear
chance," which has been applied to vehicular accidents, is inapplicable to
this case.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court Resolved to DENY the
instant petition for lack of merit.
Fernan, Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur.

de Roy Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Roy Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

de Roy Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 80718. January 29, 1988.]

FELISA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS , petitioners, vs.

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEAL; PERIOD FOR APPEALING

In other words, there is one-month grace period from the

Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2024 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like