Title
De Roy vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 80718
Decision Date
Jan 29, 1988
A collapsed firewall from petitioners' burned-out building caused injuries and a death. Despite warnings, private respondents stayed. Petitioners were held liable for negligence under Article 2190, with procedural motions denied under *Habaluyas* rule.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 80718)

Procedural Posture

Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court to set aside two Court of Appeals resolutions: (1) a resolution of the Special First Division dated 30 September 1987 denying petitioners’ motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and directing entry of judgment because the decision had become final; and (2) a resolution dated 27 October 1987 denying petitioners’ subsequently filed motion for reconsideration as out of time. The Supreme Court observed that the petition itself lacked verification as required by Rule 65, Section 1, which could warrant outright denial; nevertheless, the Court proceeded to resolve the petition on both procedural and substantive grounds and denied it on the merits.

Factual Background

A firewall of a building owned by petitioners, described as a burned-out wall, collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the private respondents’ family. The collapse caused injuries to the private respondents and resulted in the death of their daughter, Marissa Bernal. Petitioners had warned the private respondents to vacate the shop because of the wall’s weakened condition, but the respondents did not vacate. The Regional Trial Court found petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages to the private respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in full in a decision promulgated on 17 August 1987; petitioners received a copy of that decision on 25 August 1987.

Timeliness, Motions, and Court of Appeals’ Actions

Petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration on 9 September 1987, which was the last day of the fifteen-day period to file an appeal or motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied that motion by resolution dated 30 September 1987 and subsequently denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (filed on 24 September 1987) as untimely in its 27 October 1987 resolution. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying the extension and in rejecting the motion for reconsideration.

Precedent and the Rule on Non-Extendable Fifteen-Day Period

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ application of the rule 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 is not extendable. The Court recalled its en banc clarificatory resolution (promulgated May 30, 1986, 142 SCRA 208), which provided that, beginning one month after that resolution, motions for extension of time to file motions for reconsideration would be strictly barred in trial and intermediate appellate courts and could only be filed with the Supreme Court in its capacity as court of last resort. Subsequent cases cited—Lacsamana v. Second Special Cases Division (G.R. No. 73146-53, August 26, 1986, 143 SCRA 643), Bacaya v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74824, Sept. 15, 1986, 144 SCRA 161), and Mission v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 73669, October 28, 1986, 145 SCRA 306)—were relied upon to reiterate and clarify the rule, its prospective application, and the operation of the grace period.

Grace Period and Its Application to the Present Case

The Supreme Court explained that there was a one-month grace period from the May 30, 1986 clarificatory resolution—i.e., up to 30 June 1986—during which the rule barring extensions was not strictly enforced. Because petitioners filed their motion for extension on 9 September 1987, more than one year after the expiration of the grace period, their motion fell outside the grace period and the rule applied. The Court therefore found no valid excuse based on ignorance of counsel for failing to comply with the reglementary period.

Petitioners’ Argument on Non-Publication and the Court’s Response

Petitioners argued that the Habaluyas rule should not be applied to them because the Habaluyas decision had not been published in the Official Gazette at the time the Court of Appeals’ decision was promulgated. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that there is no requirement that Supreme Court decisions be published in the Official Gazette before they become binding or effective. The Court emphasized the professional duty of counsel to keep abrea

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms