7/1/2016

G.R.No.80718

TodayisFriday,July01,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.80718January29,1988
FELIZAP.DEROYandVIRGILIORAMOS,petitioners,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandLUISBERNAL,SR.,GLENIABERNAL,LUISBERNAL,JR.,HEIRSOFMARISSA
BERNAL,namely,GLICERIADELACRUZBERNALandLUISBERNAL,SR.,respondents.
RESOLUTION

CORTES,J.:
Thisspecialcivilactionforcertiorariseekstodeclarenullandvoidtwo(2)resolutionsoftheSpecialFirstDivision
of the Court ofAppeals in the case of Luis Bernal, Sr., et al. v. Felisa Perdosa De Roy, et al., CAG.R. CV No.
07286.Thefirstresolutionpromulgatedon30September1987deniedpetitioners'motionforextensionoftimeto
fileamotionforreconsiderationanddirectedentryofjudgmentsincethedecisioninsaidcasehadbecomefinal
andthesecondResolutiondated27October1987deniedpetitioners'motionforreconsiderationforhavingbeen
filedoutoftime.
At the outset, this Court could have denied the petition outright for not being verified as required by Rule 65
section1oftheRulesofCourt.However,eveniftheinstantpetitiondidnotsufferfromthisdefect,thisCourt,on
proceduralandsubstantivegrounds,wouldstillresolvetodenyit.
The facts of the case are undisputed.The firewall of a burnedout building owned by petitioners collapsed and
destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of private respondents, resulting in injuries to private
respondentsandthedeathofMarissaBernal,adaughter.Privaterespondentshadbeenwarnedbypetitionersto
vacatetheirshopinviewofitsproximitytotheweakenedwallbuttheformerfailedtodoso.Onthebasisofthe
foregoingfacts,theRegionalTrialCourt.FirstJudicialRegion,BranchXXXVIII,presidedbytheHon.AntonioM.
Belen, rendered judgment finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarding damages to private
respondents.Onappeal,thedecisionofthetrialcourtwasaffirmedintotobytheCourtofAppealsinadecision
promulgatedonAugust17,1987,acopyofwhichwasreceivedbypetitionersonAugust25,1987.OnSeptember
9,1987,thelastdayofthefifteendayperiodtofileanappeal,petitionersfiledamotionforextensionoftimeto
file a motion for reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the appellate court in the Resolution of
September30,1987.PetitionersfiledtheirmotionforreconsiderationonSeptember24,1987butthiswasdenied
intheResolutionofOctober27,1987.
ThisCourtfindsthattheCourtofAppealsdidnotcommitagraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitdeniedpetitioners'
motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, directed entry of judgment and denied their
motionforreconsideration.ItcorrectlyappliedtherulelaiddowninHabaluyasEnterprises,Inc.v.Japzon,[G.R.
No. 70895, August 5, 1985,138 SCRA 461, that the fifteenday period for appealing or for filing a motion for
reconsideration cannot be extended. In its Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, promulgated on
July30,1986(142SCRA208),thisCourtenbancrestatedandclarifiedtherule,towit:
BeginningonemonthafterthepromulgationofthisResolution,theruleshallbestrictlyenforcedthatnomotion
for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial
Courts,theRegionalTrialCourts,andtheIntermediateAppellateCourt.Suchamotionmaybefiledonlyincases
pendingwiththeSupremeCourtasthecourtoflastresort,whichmayinitssounddiscretioneithergrantordeny
theextensionrequested.(atp.212)
Lacsamanav.SecondSpecialCasesDivisionoftheintermediateAppellateCourt,[G.R.No.7314653,August26,
1986,143SCRA643],reiteratedtheruleandwentfurthertorestateandclarifythemodesandperiodsofappeal.
Bacayav.IntermediateAppellateCourt,[G.R.No.74824,Sept.15,1986,144SCRA161],stressedtheprospective
applicationofsaidrule,andexplainedtheoperationofthegraceperiod,towit:
In other words, there is a onemonth grace period from the promulgation on May 30, 1986 of the
Court'sResolutionintheclarificatoryHabaluyascase,oruptoJune30,1986,withinwhichtherule
barring extensions of time to file motions for new trial or reconsideration is, as yet, not strictly
enforceable.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/jan1988/gr_80718_1988.html

1/2

7/1/2016

G.R.No.80718

Since petitioners herein filed their motion for extension on February 27, 1986, it is still within the
graceperiod,whichexpiredonJune30,1986,andmaystillbeallowed.
ThisgraceperiodwasalsoappliedinMissionv.IntermediateAppellateCourt[G.R.No.73669,October28,1986,
145SCRA306].]
Intheinstantcase,however,petitioners'motionforextensionoftimewasfiledonSeptember9,1987,morethan
ayearaftertheexpirationofthegraceperiodonJune30,1986.Hence,itisnolongerwithinthecoverageofthe
grace period. Considering the length of time from the expiration of the grace period to the promulgation of the
decision of the Court ofAppeals onAugust 25, 1987, petitioners cannot seek refuge in the ignorance of their
counselregardingsaidrulefortheirfailuretofileamotionforreconsiderationwithinthereglementaryperiod.
PetitionerscontendthattheruleenunciatedintheHabaluyascaseshouldnotbemadetoapplytothecaseatbar
owingtothenonpublicationoftheHabaluyasdecisionintheOfficialGazetteasofthetimethesubjectdecisionof
theCourtofAppealswaspromulgated.Contrarytopetitioners'view,thereisnolawrequiringthepublicationof
SupremeCourtdecisionsintheOfficialGazettebeforetheycanbebindingandasaconditiontotheirbecoming
effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the
Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the
advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G. R. s) and in such publications as the Supreme Court Reports
Annotated(SCRA)andlawjournals.
This Court likewise finds that the Court ofAppeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial
court'sdecisionholdingpetitionerliableunderArticle2190oftheCivilCode,whichprovidesthat"theproprietorof
abuildingorstructureisresponsibleforthedamageresultingfromitstotalorpartialcollapse,ifitshouldbedue
tothelackofnecessaryrepairs.
Norwasthereerrorinrejectingpetitionersargumentthatprivaterespondentshadthe"lastclearchance"toavoid
the accident if only they heeded the. warning to vacate the tailoring shop and , therefore, petitioners prior
negligenceshouldbedisregarded,sincethedoctrineof"lastclearchance,"whichhasbeenappliedtovehicular
accidents,isinapplicabletothiscase.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theCourtResolvedtoDENYtheinstantpetitionforlackofmerit.
Fernan(Chairman),Gutierrez,Jr.,FelicianoandBidin,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/jan1988/gr_80718_1988.html

2/2