Republic of the Philippines

!"#$%&% ()"$*
Nanila
TBIRB BIvISI0N
+,$, -., /012/ 3456478 9:; 2://
<%=>?@ #, A% $)B 45C D>$+>=>) $@&)!; petitioneis,
vs.
()"$* )< @##%@=! 45C =">! E%$-@=; !$,; +=%->@ E%$-@=; =">!
E%$-@=; 3$,; F%>$! )< &@$>!!@ E%$-@=; 54GHI8; +=>(%$>@ A%=@ ($"?
E%$-@= 45C =">! E%$-@=; !$,; iesponuents.
$ % ! ) = " * > ) -

()$*%!; !"#
This special civil action foi ceitioiaii seeks to ueclaie null anu voiu two (2)
iesolutions of the Special Fiist Bivision of the Couit of Appeals in the case of
Luis Beinal, Si., et al. v. Felisa Peiuosa Be Roy, et al., CA-u.R. Cv No. u7286.
The fiist iesolution piomulgateu on Su Septembei 1987 uenieu petitioneis'
motion foi extension of time to file a motion foi ieconsiueiation anu uiiecteu
entiy of juugment since the uecision in saiu case hau become final; anu the
seconu Resolution uateu 27 0ctobei 1987 uenieu petitioneis' motion foi
ieconsiueiation foi having been fileu out of time.
At the outset, this Couit coulu have uenieu the petition outiight foi not being
veiifieu as iequiieu by Rule 6S section 1 of the Rules of Couit. Bowevei, even
if the instant petition uiu not suffei fiom this uefect, this Couit, on pioceuuial
anu substantive giounus, woulu still iesolve to ueny it.
The facts of the case aie unuisputeu. The fiiewall of a buineu-out builuing
owneu by petitioneis collapseu anu uestioyeu the tailoiing shop occupieu by
the family of piivate iesponuents, iesulting in injuiies to piivate iesponuents
anu the ueath of Naiissa Beinal, a uaughtei. Piivate iesponuents hau been
waineu by petitioneis to vacate theii shop in view of its pioximity to the
weakeneu wall but the foimei faileu to uo so. 0n the basis of the foiegoing
facts, the Regional Tiial Couit. Fiist }uuicial Region, Bianch XXXvIII, piesiueu
by the Bon. Antonio N. Belen, ienueieu juugment finuing petitioneis guilty of
gioss negligence anu awaiuing uamages to piivate iesponuents. 0n appeal,
the uecision of the tiial couit was affiimeu in toto by the Couit of Appeals in a
uecision piomulgateu on August 17, 1987, a copy of which was ieceiveu by
petitioneis on August 2S, 1987. 0n Septembei 9, 1987, the last uay of the
fifteen-uay peiiou to file an appeal, petitioneis fileu a motion foi extension of
time to file a motion foi ieconsiueiation, which was eventually uenieu by the
appellate couit in the Resolution of Septembei Su, 1987. Petitioneis fileu
theii motion foi ieconsiueiation on Septembei 24, 1987 but this was uenieu
in the Resolution of 0ctobei 27, 1987.
This Couit finus that the Couit of Appeals uiu not commit a giave abuse of
uiscietion when it uenieu petitioneis' motion foi extension of time to file a
motion foi ieconsiueiation, uiiecteu entiy of juugment anu uenieu theii
motion foi ieconsiueiation. It coiiectly applieu the iule laiu uown
in !"#"$%&"' )*+,-.-/','0 1*23 43 5".67*, |u.R. No. 7u89S, August S, 198S,1S8
SCRA 461, that the fifteen-uay peiiou foi appealing oi foi filing a motion foi
ieconsiueiation cannot be extenueu. In its Resolution uenying the motion foi
ieconsiueiation, piomulgateu on }uly Su, 1986 (142 SCRA 2u8), this Couit ,*
#"*2 iestateu anu claiifieu the iule, to wit:
Beginning one month aftei the piomulgation of this Resolution, the iule shall
be stiictly enfoiceu that no motion foi extension of time to file a motion foi
ieconsiueiation may be fileu with the Netiopolitan oi Nunicipal Tiial Couits,
the Regional Tiial Couits, anu the Inteimeuiate Appellate Couit. Such a
motion may be fileu only in cases penuing with the Supieme Couit as the
couit of last iesoit, which may in its sounu uiscietion eithei giant oi ueny the
extension iequesteu. (at p. 212)
8"2'"9"*" 43 :,27*; :.,2/"$ <"',' =/4/'/7* 7> +?, /*+,-9,;/"+, @..,$$"+,
<7%-+0 |u.R. No. 7S146-SS, August 26, 1986, 14S SCRA 64Sj, ieiteiateu the
iule anu went fuithei to iestate anu claiify the moues anu peiious of appeal.
A"2"&" 43 1*+,-9,;/"+, @..,$$"+, <7%-+0 |u.R. No. 74824, Sept. 1S, 1986,144
SCRA 161j,stiesseu the piospective application of saiu iule, anu explaineu
the opeiation of the giace peiiou, to wit:
In othei woius, theie is a one-month giace peiiou fiom the
piomulgation on Nay Su, 1986 of the Couit's Resolution in
the claiificatoiy Babaluyas case, oi up to }une Su, 1986,
within which the iule baiiing extensions of time to file
motions foi new tiial oi ieconsiueiation is, as yet, not
stiictly enfoiceable.
Since petitioneis heiein fileu theii motion foi extension on
Febiuaiy 27, 1986, it is still within the giace peiiou, which
expiieu on }une Su, 1986, anu may still be alloweu.
This giace peiiou was also applieu in B/''/7* 43 1*+,-9,;/"+, @..,$$"+,
<7%-+ |u.R. No. 7S669, 0ctobei 28, 1986, 14S SCRA Su6j.j
In the instant case, howevei, petitioneis' motion foi extension of time was
fileu on Septembei 9, 1987, moie than a yeai aftei the expiiation of the giace
peiiou on }une Su, 1986. Bence, it is no longei within the coveiage of the
giace peiiou. Consiueiing the length of time fiom the expiiation of the giace
peiiou to the piomulgation of the uecision of the Couit of Appeals on August
2S, 1987, petitioneis cannot seek iefuge in the ignoiance of theii counsel
iegaiuing saiu iule foi theii failuie to file a motion foi ieconsiueiation within
the ieglementaiy peiiou.
Petitioneis contenu that the iule enunciateu in the !"#"$%&"' case shoulu not
be maue to apply to the case at bai owing to the non-publication of
the !"#"$%&"' uecision in the 0fficial uazette as of the time the subject
uecision of the Couit of Appeals was piomulgateu. Contiaiy to petitioneis'
view, theie is no law iequiiing the publication of Supieme Couit uecisions in
the 0fficial uazette befoie they can be binuing anu as a conuition to theii
becoming effective. It is the bounuen uuty of counsel as lawyei in active law
piactice to keep abieast of uecisions of the Supieme Couit paiticulaily wheie
issues have been claiifieu, consistently ieiteiateu, anu publisheu in the
auvance iepoits of Supieme Couit uecisions (u. R. s) anu in such publications
as the Supieme Couit Repoits Annotateu (SCRA) anu law jouinals.
This Couit likewise finus that the Couit of Appeals committeu no giave abuse
of uiscietion in affiiming the tiial couit's uecision holuing petitionei liable
unuei Aiticle 219u of the Civil Coue, which pioviues that "the piopiietoi of a
builuing oi stiuctuie is iesponsible foi the uamage iesulting fiom its total oi
paitial collapse, if it shoulu be uue to the lack of necessaiy iepaiis.
Noi was theie eiioi in iejecting petitioneis aigument that piivate
iesponuents hau the "last cleai chance" to avoiu the acciuent if only they
heeueu the. waining to vacate the tailoiing shop anu , theiefoie, petitioneis
piioi negligence shoulu be uisiegaiueu, since the uoctiine of "last cleai
chance," which has been applieu to vehiculai acciuents, is inapplicable to this
case.
WBEREF0RE, in view of the foiegoing, the Couit Resolveu to BENY the
instant petition foi lack of meiit.