De Roy VS.

Court of Appeals
Facts:

Special Civil Action for certiorari that seeks to declare null and void 2 resolutions of the
special First Division of the Court of Appeals in the case of Bernal et. al Vs. De Roy et. al
o Resolutions:
First. Denied PETs motion for extension of tome to file a motion for
reconsideration and directed entry of judgement since the decision in
said case had become final.
Second. Denied PETs motion for reconsideration for having been filed
out of time.
Antecedent Facts
o The firewall of a burned-out building owned by PETs collapsed and destroyed the
tailoring shop occupied by the family of private RESPOs, resulting in injuries to
private RESPOs and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter.
o The PETs have already warned the RESPOs to vacate their shop because of its
proximity to the wall. But the RESPOs failed to do so.
o Judge Belen of RTC rendered a judgement finding the PETs guilty of gross
negligence and awarding damages to the RESPOs.
o On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto a copy was
received by the PETs on August 25, 1987. On Sep 9, of the same year, the last
day of the 15 period to file an appeal, the PETs filed a motion for extension of
time to file a motion for reconsideration. This was denied by the Court of
Appeals in a resolution on sep 30.
o The PETs filed their motion for reconsideration on Sep 24 but was denied on
Octover 27.
Issue:

WON the court of appeals has committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the
PETs motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, directed entry of
judgment and denied their motion for reconsideration?
Held: No. The Court Resolved to DENY the instant petition for lack of merit.

The court restated and clarified the rule: ( Habaluyas Enterprises,Inc. v. Japzon)
o 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
 GRACE PERIOD.In other words, there is a 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. (Bacaya V. Intermediate)
o In this case PETs' 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, PETs cannot seek refuge in
the ignorance of their counsel regarding said rule for their failure to file a motion
for reconsideration withinthe reglementary period.
PETs contend that the Habaluyas case should not be applied to the case at bar since the
habaluyas decision was not published in the Official Gazette.
o However, the court claimed that there is no law requiring the publication of the
SC decisions in the official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition
for their effectivity.
It is the duty of the counsel as a lawyer in active law practice to keep
himself informed of the decisions of the SC in G.Rs, SCRA and Law
Journals.
There is no grave abuse of discretion in the CAs decision to affirm the trial courts
decision in holding the PET liable under article 2190 if the civil code.
o Article 2190 if the civil code:
"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