De Roy v CA

G.R. No. L-80718. January 29, 1988

Art. 2, CC - Effectivity of the law

Facts:
The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioner, Felisa Perdosa De Roy, 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 into 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.

Issue:
WoN the rule in the Habaluyas decision, stating that the 15-day period 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.
There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette
before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is the duty of the
counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court,
which are published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G.R.’s) and in
publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.
The ruling in the Habaluyas case was that the 15-day period for appealing or filing a
motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. Such motion may be filed 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. Such decision was given prospective application to subsequent cases like
Lacsamana vs Second Special Cases Division of the Intermediate Appellate Court and Bacaya vs
Intermediate Appellate Court.