Facts:

• The heirs of Juliana S. Magat (petitioners) substituted for the deceased Juliana in a legal dispute against Tantrade Corporation and Pablo S. Borja, Jr. (respondents).
• On December 15, 2006, Tantrade Corporation filed a Complaint for Collection of a Sum of Money with Damages against Juliana, seeking payment of P266,481.50 plus interest, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages for unpaid purchases of construction materials.
• Juliana denied making the purchases, claiming that her contractor, Pablo S. Borja, Jr., made the purchases under their Owner-Contractor Agreement.
• The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Tagbilaran City, ruled on April 8, 2010, that Juliana was liable to pay Tantrade P305,833.10 plus interest but ordered Borja to reimburse Juliana.
• Juliana appealed to the Regional Trial Court but passed away during the appeal, leading to her heirs substituting her.
• The Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Tagbilaran City, affirmed the lower court's decision on January 27, 2011, and denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration on April 18, 2011.
• The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review under Rule 42 on May 23, 2011, citing financial constraints.
• Despite paying the required fees, the Court of Appeals denied their motion on May 31, 2011, and dismissed their appeal.
• The petitioners filed a Second Urgent Motion for Extension of Time on June 6, 2011, and submitted their Petition for Review on June 22, 2011.
• They received the denial of their first motion on June 29, 2011, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on July 11, 2011, which was also denied on January 15, 2013.
• The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' May 31, 2011, and January 15, 2013 Resolutions, and reinstated the petitioners' Petition for Review under Rule 42.
...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioners' motions for extension and dismissing their appeal.
• Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure allows for extensions to file petitions for review, and the petitioners acted within the periods sanctioned by this rule.
• The Court of Appeals' assertion of "procrastination" was unfounded as the petitioners filed their F...continue reading