Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 70895 August 5, 1985

HABALUYAS ENTERPRISES, INC. and PEDRO J. HABALUYAS, petitioners,
vs.
JUDGE MAXIMO M. JAPZON, Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 36; SHUGO NODA & CO.,
LTD. and SHUYA NODA,respondents.

DECISION
AQUINO, J.:
The issue in this case is whether the fifteen-day period within which a party may file a motion
for reconsideration of a final order or ruling of the Regional Trial Court may be extended.

In Civil Case No. 82-3305 of the Manila Regional Trial Court, Shugo Noda & Co., Ltd., et al. vs.
Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc., et al., the plaintiffs received on October 1, 1984 a copy of the order
of September 3, 1984, denying their motion for execution of a judgment based on a
compromise.

On October 16, the fifteenth day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of twenty days
within which to submit their motion for reconsideration (p. 41, Rollo).

On October 23, the plaintiffs filed their motion for new trial and their “notice of appeal
(conditional)” (pp. 42 and 44, Rollo).

Petitioners or defendants Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. and Pedro J. Habaluyas opposed the
motion for extension of the time for filing a motion for reconsideration and they moved to
dismiss the conditional appeal.

Judge Maximo M. Japzon in his order of April 29, 1985 granted the motion for new trial. That
order is assailed in the instant petition.

We hold that the trial court erred in granting the motion for new trial. The fifteen-day period for
appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. Even under the existing
Rules of Court the thirty-day period cannot be extended (Roque vs. Gunigundo, Adm. Case No.
1664, March 30, 1978, 89 SCRA 178, 182; Gibbs vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, 80 Phil.
160, 164).

The Judiciary Revamp Law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, is designed to avoid the procedural delays
which plagued the administration of justice under the Rules of Court which were originally
intended to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive administration of
justice. That is why (with some exceptions) the record on appeal was dispensed with and the
thirty-day period was reduced to fifteen days.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The questioned order is reversed and set aside. No costs.

SO ORDERED.
 —————

Footnotes

* He was designated to sit in the Second Division.

CASE DIGEST

Search for Cases and Other Legal Resources

Top of Form

Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs Japzon

on August 3, 2012

138 SCRA 46 – Civil Procedure – No Extension To File Motion For Reconsideration

Shugo Noda and Co, Ltd. filed a civil case against Habaluyas Enterprises before the sala of Judge
Maximo Japzon. The trial court eventually ruled adversely against Shugo Noda and a copy of
said decision was received by Shugo Noda on October 1, 1984. On October 16, 1984, the last
day for filing a motion for reconsideration, Shugo Noda filed a motion for extension to file MFR.
Judge Japzon granted said motion.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Japzon is correct in granting the motion for extension.
HELD: No. The fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot
be extended. This is to avoid procedural delays. This is an aim of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 – to
assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. This is
also why the original 30 day period to file a motion for reconsideration was reduced to 15 days.
NOTE: Supreme Court clarified that 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.