Case Digest (G.R. No. 177498)
Facts:
In Felisa P. de Roy and Virgilio Ramos v. Court of Appeals and Luis Bernal, Sr., et al. (G.R. No. 80718, January 29, 1988), petitioners Felisa P. de Roy and Virgilio Ramos owned a building whose firewall collapsed, destroying the tailoring shop occupied by respondents Luis Bernal, Sr., Glenia Bernal, Luis Bernal, Jr., and the heirs of Marissa Bernal (Gliceria Dela Cruz Bernal and another Luis Bernal, Sr.). The collapse caused injuries to respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal despite prior warnings from petitioners to vacate the premises. The Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region (Branch XXXVIII, Hon. Antonio M. Belen) found petitioners guilty of gross negligence under Article 2190 of the Civil Code and awarded damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto by decision promulgated on August 17, 1987 (received August 25, 1987). Petitioners then sought an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration on September 9, 1987, which the appellate coCase Digest (G.R. No. 177498)
Facts:
- Collapse of firewall and resulting damage
- Petitioners, Felisa P. De Roy and Virgilio Ramos, owned a burned-out building with a weakened firewall.
- The firewall collapsed, destroying the tailoring shop occupied by respondents Luis Bernal, Sr., Glenia Bernal, and family, causing injuries and the death of their daughter Marissa Bernal.
- Prior warnings and respondents’ inaction
- Petitioners warned respondents to vacate the shop due to the wall’s dangerous condition.
- Respondents failed to heed the warning and remained in the premises.
- Trial court proceedings
- Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XXXVIII, found petitioners guilty of gross negligence under Article 2190 of the Civil Code.
- RTC awarded actual, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages to respondents.
- Court of Appeals proceedings
- On August 17, 1987, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto; petitioners received a copy on August 25, 1987.
- On September 9, 1987 (last day of the 15-day period), petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration; the CA denied it on September 30, 1987.
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on September 24, 1987; the CA denied it as out of time on October 27, 1987.
- Petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court
- Petitioners sought to annul both CA resolutions for denial of extension and reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court noted the petition was unverified but proceeded to resolve it on procedural and substantive grounds.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
- Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration as filed out of time.
- Whether the rule barring extension of the 15-day period for filing motions for reconsideration applies despite non-publication of the leading decisions in the Official Gazette.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ liability under Article 2190 of the Civil Code.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting the “last clear chance” doctrine as inapplicable to building collapse cases.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)