De Roy V CA

G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988

Facts:

 The petitioners' burned-out building had a collapsed firewall, which destroyed the tailoring shop
of the private respondents, resulting in injuries and the death of Marissa Bernal.

 Private respondents were warned by petitioners to vacate their shop due to the weakened wall,
but they failed to do so.

 The Regional Trial Court found petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages to
private respondents.

 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, and petitioners received notice on
August 25, 1987.

 On September 9, 1987, the last day for appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time
to file a motion for reconsideration, which was eventually denied.

Issue:

WON CA commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration?

Supreme Court's Ruling: No.

Explanation: The Supreme Court, in its ruling, upheld the denial of petitioners' motion for extension of
time. The Court referred to the rule established in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, which strictly
enforced that the fifteen-day period for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be
extended. The Court clarified that, beginning one month after the promulgation of a certain Resolution,
the rule is strictly enforced, and no motion for extension can be filed except with the Supreme Court as
the court of last resort.

The Court also pointed out the prospective application of this rule, including a one-month grace period
from the promulgation of the clarificatory Habaluyas case, during which the rule barring extensions was
not strictly enforceable. However, in this case, the petitioners' motion for extension was filed on
September 9, 1987, more than a year after the grace period had expired on June 30, 1986. Therefore, it
was outside the coverage of the grace period, and the Court rejected the argument that the petitioners'
counsel was ignorant of the rule.

Additionally, the Court dismissed the argument that the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in
the Official Gazette made the rule inapplicable. The Court emphasized that there is no law requiring
the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette for them to be binding.

Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision holding the petitioners liable under
Article 2190 of the Civil Code, which states that the proprietor of a building is responsible for damage
resulting from its collapse due to the lack of necessary repairs. The Court rejected the argument that the
private respondents had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident, stating that this doctrine, applied
to vehicular accidents, was inapplicable to the case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming the decisions of the
lower courts and upholding the denial of the motion for extension of time.