Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

De Roy v.

Court of Appeals


The firewall of a burned building owned by petitioner collapsed and destroyed the tailoring
shop occupied by the family of private respondents, resulting in injuries to private respondents
and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private respondents have been warned by
petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the wakened wall but former failed to
do so. On the basis of foregoing facts, petitioners were charged guilty of gross negligence and
awarding damages to private respondents.

On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by the CA in a decision
promulgated on Aug 17, 1987, a copy on which petitioners received on Aug 25, 1987. Then on
Sept 9, 1987, the last day of the 15-day period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the
appellate court. Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on Sept 24, 1987 but was
denied in the resolution of Oct 27, 1987.

Petitioners then files for certiorari against respondent seeking to nullify and void two resolution
of the CA. The first resolution promulgated on 30 September 1987 denied petitioner's motion
for extension of time to 􏰂le a motion for reconsideration and directed entry of judgment since
the decision in said case had become final; and the second Resolution dated 27 October 1987
denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for having been filed out of time.

Petitioners also contend that the rule of in Habaluyas case should not be made to apply to the
case at bar owning to the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette as of
the time the subject decision of the CA was promulgated.


Whether or not the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion denying petitioner’s motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.


The court finds that CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming that trial court’s
decision holding petitioner liable under Article 2190 of the Civil Code which provides that “the
proprietor of a building or structure is responsible for the damage resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs”

Contrary to petitioner’s view on the Habaluyas case, there is no law requiring the publication of
Supreme Court decision in the official Gazette before they can be binding and effective. It is the
duty of the counsel to keep abreast of the decisions of the Supreme Court.