Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    De Roy vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    ladyJuris
    This case involved a collapsed firewall from a burned building that destroyed a tailoring shop and killed one person. The owners of the building were found guilty of gross negligence by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The owners filed a motion for reconsideration on the last day allowed but argued it should not be denied due to a Supreme Court case not being published in the Official Gazette yet. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as prior cases had established that filing deadlines cannot be extended. The Court also found that Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the Official Gazette to be binding.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De Roy vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    ladyJuris
    3K views2 pages
    This case involved a collapsed firewall from a burned building that destroyed a tailoring shop and killed one person. The owners of the building were found guilty of gross negligence by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The owners filed a motion for reconsideration on the last day allowed but argued it should not be denied due to a Supreme Court case not being published in the Official Gazette yet. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as prior cases had established that filing deadlines cannot be extended. The Court also found that Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the Official Gazette to be binding.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a collapsed firewall from a burned building that destroyed a tailoring shop and killed one person. The owners of the building were found guilty of gross negligence by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The owners filed a motion for reconsideration on the last day allowed but argued it should not be denied due to a Supreme Court case not being published in the Official Gazette yet. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as prior cases had established that filing deadlines cannot be extended. The Court also found that Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the Official Gazette to be binding.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    3K views2 pages

    De Roy vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    ladyJuris
    This case involved a collapsed firewall from a burned building that destroyed a tailoring shop and killed one person. The owners of the building were found guilty of gross negligence by the trial court and Court of Appeals. The owners filed a motion for reconsideration on the last day allowed but argued it should not be denied due to a Supreme Court case not being published in the Official Gazette yet. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as prior cases had established that filing deadlines cannot be extended. The Court also found that Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the Official Gazette to be binding.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    De Roy vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

    80718 (1988) Facts:


    The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners Feliza P. De Roy and Virgilio Ramos collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of the respondent Luis Bernal resulting in injuries to private respondents to private respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private respondents had been warned by petitionersto vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do. In the RTC, petitioners were found guilty of gross negligence. The trial courts order was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. On the last day of the 15 days period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied because it was no longer within the grace period. Petitioners now contend that the rule in the Habaluyas case should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the nonpublication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette at the time of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Supreme Court decisions must be published in the Official Gazette before they can be binding.

    HELD:
    This Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, directed entry of judgment and denied their motion for reconsideration. It correctly applied the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, [G.R. No. 70895, August 5, 1985,138 SCRA 461, that the fifteenday period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. In its Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, promulgated on July 30, 1986 (142 SCRA 208), this Court en banc restated and clarified the rule, to wit: Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, 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. There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decision in the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions and in such publications as the SCRA and law journals.

    RELATED NEW CIVIL CODE PROVISION: ARTICLE 2

    You might also like