Name Facts Issue
De Roy vs. Court of This special civil Whether or not
Appeals action for certiorari
seeks to declare null
and void two (2)
resolutions of the
Special First Division
of the Court of
Appeals in the case
of Luis Bernal, Sr., et
al. v. Felisa Perdosa
De Roy, et al
The first resolution
promulgated on 30
September 1987
denied petitioners'
motion for extension
of time to file a
motion for
reconsideration and
directed entry of
judgment since the
decision in said case
had become final;
and the second
Resolution dated 27
October 1987 denied
petitioners' motion
for reconsideration
for having been filed
Ruling
No. There is no law
Supreme Court requiring the publication
decisions must be of Supreme Court
published in the decision in the Official
Official Gazette Gazette before they can
before they can be be binding and as a
binding. condition to their
becoming effective. It is
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 and in such
publications as the
SCRA and law journals.
 out of time.
The firewall of a
burned-out building
owned by petitioners
collapsed and
destroyed the
tailoring shop
occupied by the
family of private
respondents,
resulting in injuries to
private respondents
and the death of
Marissa Bernal, a
daughter.
De Roy claimed that
Bernal had been
warned prior hand
but that she was
ignored.
In the RTC, De
Roy was found guilty
of gross negligence.
She appealed but
the Court of Appeals
affirmed the RTC
On the last day of
filing a motion for
reconsideration, De
Roys counsel filed a
 motion for extension.
It was denied by the
CA.
The CA ruled
that pursuant to the
case of Habaluyas
Enterprises vs
Japzon (August
1985), the fifteen-
day period for
appealing or for filing
a motion for
reconsideration
cannot be extended.
Clarification:
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.
De Roys counsel
however argued that
the Habaluyas case
should not be
applicable because
said ruling was never
published in the
Official Gazette.
Bar Matter No. 850 RULE 1 RULE 7
(Mandatory PURPOSE EXEMPTIONS
Continuing Legal Section 1. Purpose Section 1. Parties
Education) of the MCLE exempted from the
Continuing legal MCLE
education is required The following
of members of the members of the Bar
Integrated Bar of the are exempt from the
Philippines (IBP) to MCLE requirement:
ensure that (a) The President
 throughout their and the Vice
career, they keep President of the
abreast with law and Philippines, and the
jurisprudence, Secretaries and
maintain the ethics Undersecretaries of
of the profession and Executives
enhance the Departments;
standards of the (b) Senators and
practice of law. Members of the
RULE 2 House of
MANDATORY Representatives;
CONTINUING (c) The Chief Justice
LEGAL and Associate
EDUCATION Justices of the
Section Supreme Court,
1. Constitution of the incumbent and
MCLE Committee retired members of
Within two (2) the judiciary,
months from the incumbent members
approval of these of the Judicial and
Rules by the Bar Council and
Supreme Court En incumbent court
Banc, the MCLE lawyers covered by
Committee shall be the Philippine
constituted in Judicial Academy
accordance with program of
these Rules. continuing judicial
Section education;
2. Requirements of (d) The Chief State
completion of MCLE Counsel, Chief State
 Members of the IBP Prosecutor and
not exempt under Assistant Secretaries
Rule 7 shall of the Department of
complete, every Justice;
three (3) years, at (e) The Solicitor
least thirty-six (36) General and the
hours of continuing Assistant Solicitor
legal education General;
activities approved (f) The Government
by the MCLE Corporate Counsel,
Committee. Of the Deputy and Assistant
36 hours: Government
(a) At least six (6) Corporate Counsel;
hours shall be (g) The Chairmen
devoted to legal and Members of the
ethics. Constitutional
(b) At least (4) hours Commissions;
shall be devoted to (h) The
trial and pretrial Ombudsman, the
skills. Overall Deputy
(c) At least five (5) Ombudsman, the
hours shall be Deputy Ombudsmen
devoted to and the Special
alternative dispute Prosecutor of the
resolution. Office of the
(d) At least nine (9) Ombudsman;
hours shall be (i) Heads of
devoted to updates government
on substantive and agencies exercising
procedural laws, and quasi-judicial
 jurisprudence. functions;
(e) At least four (4) (j) Incumbent deans,
hours shall be bar reviews and
devoted to legal professors of law
writing and oral who have teaching
advocacy. experience for at
(f) At least two (2) least 10 years
hours shall be accredited law
devoted to schools;
international law and (k) The Chancellor,
international Vice-Chancellor and
conventions. members of the
(g) The remaining six Corps of Professors
(6) hours shall be and Professorial
devoted to such Lectures of the
subjects as may be Philippine Judicial
prescribed by the Academy; and
MCLE Committee. (l) Governors and
Mayors.
Section 2. Other
parties exempted
from the MCLE
The following
Members of the Bar
are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are
not in law practice,
private or public.
(b) Those who have
retired from law
 practice with the
approval of the IBP
Board of Governors.

People vs. Jardin Two constitutional Considering the The respondent court
rightsspeedy trial factual setting in the committed a grave
and freedom from criminal cases at bar, abuse of discretion in
double jeopardy was the respondent dismissing the cases
are interposed as Court correct in and in basing the
defenses by the dismissing the cases dismissal on the
accused in this and in predicating constitutional right of the
petition for review on the dismissal on the accused to speedy trial.
certiorari. right of the The right to a speedy
The petitioner asks defendant to a trial means that the
us to review and speedy trial? accused is free from
annul the orders of vexatious, capricious,
the Court of First and oppressive delays,
Instance of Quezon, its salutary objective
Branch V, which being to assure that an
dismissed the innocent person may be
criminal cases free from anxiety and
against accuse expense of a court
Demetrio Jardin litigation or, if otherwise,
because his of having his guilt
constitutional right to determined within the
speedy trial was shortest possible time
allegedly violated. compatible with the
The criminal presentation and
prosecutions consideration of
originated from a whatever legitimate
defense he may
 letter complaint of interpose.
the Provincial Auditor [From a perusal of the
of Quezon facts, it is readily seen
requesting the that all the delays in the
Provincial Fiscal to prosecution of the cases
file the necessary were caused by the
criminal action under accused himself.] All the
Article 217 of the postponements of
Revised Penal Code proceedings were made
against Demetrio at his instance and for
Jardin for his behalf. Hence, the
malversation of constitutional right to a
public funds thru speedy trial afforded to
falsification of public an accused by our
documents on six Constitution cannot be
counts. invoked.
The cases were
assigned to Assistant
Fiscal Meliton V.
Angeles who set
them for preliminary
investigation.The
accused moved to
postpone the
investigation twice.
On the third time that
the investigation was
re-set, the accused
and his counsel
failed to appear.
 On the fourth
resetting, the
accused and his
counsel again failed
to appear. Inspire of
their absence, the
preliminary
investigation was
conducted and
shortly afterwards,
six informations were
filed against the
accused
Counsel for the
accused moved for
the postponement of
the arraignment and
requested the court
that the records be
returned again to the
Office of the Fiscal
for further
reinvestigation.
A series of
postponements was
again filed by the
accused causing
further delays of the
reinvestigation. On
June 27, 1968,
 accused and his
counsel appeared
together but
requested for a
period of fifteen (15)
days within which to
file a memorandum.
On October 12,
1970, when the said
criminal cases were
called for hearing, no
one appeared for the
prosecution, except
a state witness, Mr.
Cesar Alcala of the
Provincial Auditor's
office who remained
silent during the
proceedings.
Invoking his client's
constitutional right to
speedy trial and
seizing the
opportunity to take
advantage of the
prosecution's failure
to appear on that
day, the defense
counsel moved for
the dismissal of the
 cases. The
respondent court
granted the oral
motion for dismissal
"for reasons of
constitutional rights
of the accused
Demetrio Jardin. "
Cabagui vs. CA The Court finds
respondent, Attorney
Eugenio M. Millado,
guilty of gross
negligence in not
having complied with
a "show cause"
resolution and of
abusing the right of
recourse to the Court
by filing multiple
petitions for the
same cause in the
false expectation of
getting favorable
action from one
division as against
the adverse action of
the other division.

Casals vs. Cusi Jr. The Court imposes a WON Atty. Delantes No. In his previous
three-months explanation motions for extension,
 suspension from the deserves credence? he never mentioned his
practice of law upon belated allegation now
counsel of that another lawyer had
respondents for been retained.
improper conduct In his second motion for
and abuse of the extension, supra, Atty.
Court's good faith by Delante's law office
his acts in the case cited as reason the fact
at bar manifesting that he had gotten sick.
gross disrespect for In his third motion for
the Court's a last 15-day extension,
processes and a Delante assured the
willful disregard of Court that he
his solemn duty to has already
conduct himself with prepared the final
all good fidelity to the draft and cited pressure
Court and tending to of work in his office and
embarrass gravely the Christmas Season
the administration of for not having finalized
justice. and typed out the
December 8, 1972, comments in a clean
Atty. Leonido C. copy.
Delante as counsel His present explanation
for respondents is not even borne out by
states that while he Atty. Fernandez' medical
received notice of certificate which shows
the Court's resolution that he was confined in
"no accompanying the hospital for
copy of the petition sinusitis only from Dece
has been attached mber 23-26. Hence he
hence the counsel
 would not be able had sufficient time and
to prepare the opportunity to submit
comments filed the comments by the
his first motion for extended deadline.
a ten-day extension
of time to submit
respondents'
comment. The
Court granted first
motion for extension.
December 14, 1972,
Atty. Primo O.
Orellan on behalf of
Delante, Orellan &
Associates as
counsel for
respondents filed a
second motion for
extension of ten
days to submit
respondents'
comment on the
ground that Atty.
L.C. Delante,
counsel of record,
got sick and that
Atty. Delante has
just recovered from
his ailment.
December 28, 1972,
 Atty. Leonido C.
Delante filed a third
motion for "a last
extension of fifteen
days to submit the
comment, stating the
undersigned counsel
already prepared the
final draft but due to
pressure of work in
his office and
matters occasioned
by the Christmas
season, the same
has not been
finalized and typed
out in a clean copy
for filing.
The Court granted
the said extensions
totalling twenty-five
days. Having noted
respondents' failure
to file their comment
notwithstanding the
numerous
extensions, the
Court resolved to
require Atty.
Delante to explain
and show cause
 why they failed to
file the required
comment.
Atty. Delante in his
explanation claimed
that in view of his
pressing
professional
commitments, he
requested his clients
to have the answer
prepared by another
lawyer Atty. Antonio
Fernandez. It was
only upon receipt of
the Court's resolution
requiring his
explanation that he
learned that Atty.
Fernandez
underwent a surgical
operation.

Roxas vs. CA Did the honorable

court of appeals err
in holding the herein
petitioner guilty of
forum shopping?