De Roy vs CA Case Digest

De Roy vs CA and Bernal Case Digest – GR 80718; January 29, 1988

De Roy vs CA Case Digest


FACTS

Petitioner Feliza De Roy was the respondent in a civil case for damages filed by Luis Bernal.

In the civil case, the RTC found De Roy grossly negligent and awarded damages to Bernal for the injuries he sustained and for the death of his daughter caused by the collapse of a burned-out building’s firewall owned by De Roy.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

On the last day of the 15-day period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.

The CA denied the motion by applying the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon that said period cannot be extended.

Petitioners contend 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 decision in the Official Gazette when the CA decision was promulgated.


RELATED:


Issue

Whether or not the publication in the Official Gazette required before SC decisions can become binding and effective?

Ruling

No, publication is not required.

There is no law requiring the publication of SC decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective.

It is the bounden duty of counsel as a lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the SC particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance reports of SC decisions and in such publications as the SCRA and law journals.

In this case, petitioner’s contention that the SC decision was not binding and effective because it lacks publication is without merit.

Since publication is not required, the SC decision is binding and effective even without being published in the Official Gazette.


De Roy vs CA Case Digest

More Case Digests Here

Total
2
Shares
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts