GR L 80718; (January, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-80718, January 29, 1988
FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS BERNAL, SR., et al., respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a tort action. The firewall of petitioners’ burned-out building collapsed onto a tailoring shop occupied by the private respondents’ family, causing injuries and the death of a daughter. The Regional Trial Court found petitioners grossly negligent and liable for damages, a decision affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals (CA) in a decision received by petitioners on August 25, 1987. The fifteen-day period to file a motion for reconsideration with the CA expired on September 9, 1987.
On that final day, petitioners filed only a motion for an extension of time to file their motion for reconsideration. The CA denied this motion for extension, directed entry of judgment, and subsequently denied the belated motion for reconsideration itself. Petitioners then filed this special civil action for certiorari, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and in subsequently denying their belated motion for reconsideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is firmly grounded in procedural rules established by the Court. The Court applied the rule in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, which strictly prohibits the filing of motions for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration in lower courts and the CA. This rule was clarified to take effect prospectively after a one-month grace period ending on June 30, 1986.
Petitioners filed their motion for extension on September 9, 1987, well over a year after the grace period had expired. Their counsel’s claimed ignorance of the rule did not excuse compliance, as lawyers have a duty to keep abreast of Supreme Court rulings through advance reports and legal publications. The Court also rejected the substantive argument on liability, upholding the CA’s application of Article 2190 of the Civil Code, which holds a building proprietor responsible for damages from collapse due to lack of repairs, and correctly finding the “last clear chance” doctrine inapplicable to the circumstances.