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. Issues: 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. Ratio: 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.