De Roy vs Court of Appeals 157 SCRA 757

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 in toto by the Court of
Appeals. On the last day of the 15-day period 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.

Habaluyas doctrine:

(1) that the 15-day period for filing an appeal is non-extendible; and

(2) that there is a prohibition against the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for new
trial or reconsideration in all courts, except the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not 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 pubications 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.
 With regard to the contention on the “last clear chance” of private respondents to avoid the
accident, this should be disregarded, since the doctrine of “last clear chance”, wich has been
applied to vehicular accidents, is inapplicable to this case.