De Roy vs Court of Appeals 157 SCRA 757

Facts:
The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioner, Felisa Perdosa DeRoy,
collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop of private respondents, Luis Bernal, Sr., et al.,
resulting in injuries to their family and death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private
respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop but the former failed to
do so. Given the facts, the First Judicial Region rendered judgment finding petitioners
guilty of gross negligence and awarding damages to private respondents. This decision
was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. On the last day of the 15-dayperiod to file an
appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of tie to file a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied by the appellate court. They again filed for a motion for reconsideration
but was subsequently denied. Petitioner filed for a special civic action for certiorari to
declare null and void the previous decision and claimed that the appellate court committed
grave abuse of discretion. They contended that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case
should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication of the
Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette. Also they argued that the petitioners had the
“last clear chance” to avoid the accident if only they heeded the warning to vacate the
shop.
Issues:
Whether or not the rule in the Habaluyas decision, stating that the 15-dayperiod for
appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended, could be applied to
the case at bar.
Held:
The ruling in the Habaluyas case should be made to apply to the case at bar,
notwithstanding the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette.
Ratio:
•
There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in theOfficial
Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to theirbecoming effective. It is the
duty of the counsel as lawyer in active lawpractice to keep abreast of decisions of the
Supreme Court, which arepublished in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions
(G.R.’s) and inpubications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and
law journals.
•
The ruling in the
Habaluyas
case was that the 15-day period for appealing orfiling a motion for reconsideration cannot
be extended. Such motion may befiled only in cases pending in the Supreme Court as
the court of last resort,which in its discretion may grant or deny the extension requested.
Suchdecision was given prospective application to subsequent cases like
Lacsamana vs Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate AppellateCourt
and
Bacaya vs Intermediate Appellate Court.