Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 135 views

    De Roy v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Michaella Reyes
    The firewall of a building owned by the petitioners collapsed and destroyed a tailoring shop, injuring the occupants. The trial court found the petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The petitioners filed a motion for an extension to file a motion for reconsideration past the deadline, which was denied, as was their subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioners argued the Court of Appeals abused its discretion. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in line with previous rulings, and Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the official gazette to be binding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De Roy v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Michaella Reyes
    135 views1 page
    The firewall of a building owned by the petitioners collapsed and destroyed a tailoring shop, injuring the occupants. The trial court found the petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The petitioners filed a motion for an extension to file a motion for reconsideration past the deadline, which was denied, as was their subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioners argued the Court of Appeals abused its discretion. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in line with previous rulings, and Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the official gazette to be binding.

    Original Description:

    PERSONS1

    Original Title

    DE ROY v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The firewall of a building owned by the petitioners collapsed and destroyed a tailoring shop, injuring the occupants. The trial court found the petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The petitioners filed a motion for an extension to file a motion for reconsideration past the deadline, which was denied, as was their subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioners argued the Court of Appeals abused its discretion. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in line with previous rulings, and Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the official gazette to be binding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    135 views1 page

    De Roy v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Michaella Reyes
    The firewall of a building owned by the petitioners collapsed and destroyed a tailoring shop, injuring the occupants. The trial court found the petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The petitioners filed a motion for an extension to file a motion for reconsideration past the deadline, which was denied, as was their subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioners argued the Court of Appeals abused its discretion. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in line with previous rulings, and Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the official gazette to be binding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    De Roy v.

    Court of Appeals

    FACTS:

    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.

    ISSUE/S:

    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.

    RULING/S:

    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.

    You might also like